LexSTATE OF MADHYA PRADESH versus SURENDRA KORI
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B [2012] 8 S.C.R. 858 STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH v. SURENDRA KORI (Criminal Appeal No. 1508 of 2012) SEPTEMBER 26, 2012 [K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN AND DIPAK MISRA, JJ.] CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973: c s.482 - Exercise of inherent power by High Court - Explained. s.482 - Petition seeking to quash FIR - FIR against respondents for offences punishable ulss.420, 467, 468, 471 rlw ss.34 and 1208 /PC and ss.34 and 81 of Registration Act D - Allegations of registration of fake sale deeds on fictitious documents to avail of the Special Rehabilitation Package meant for oustees of Sardar Sarovar Project - FIR quashed by High Court- Held: Respondent was functioning as Deputy Registrar during the relevant period when more than 102 sale E deeds relating to the same transaction were executed and all those documents were prima facie found to be forged so as to get the benefit of the Package which was meant for the Project affected personsloustees displaced from the land - Respondent was alleged, to have registered various F documents relating to the Project without verifying the credentials of the purchasers and sellers and without examining that the land covered by the sale deeds was in existence or not or the lands belonged to the State Government - Further it was noticed that certain deeds were G executed in respect of the lands which were not wholly situated in his own sub-districts and that the provisions of s.64 of the Registration Act were not followed - It was noticed, prima facie, that vendors and vendees were not the Project affected personsloustees, but they wanted to avail of the benefit of the H 858 STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH v. SURENDRA 859 KORI Package and thereby deceived the State Government as well A as the Project affected personsloustees - Respondent was suspended from the service noticing that he was also instrumental and abetted in the commission of the crime - Allegation is that the forged sale deeds were executed for unlawful gain for which the respondent has also conspired B and abetted the crime - In view of the magnitude of the crime, the number of documents alleged to have been executed fraudulently, the reports referred to in the charge-sheets and the involvement of the respondent etc. could be decided only if an opportunity is given to the prosecution -High Court, in c such circumstances, was not justified in quashing all the First Information Reports and the charge-sheets in exercise of its powers uls. 482 - Judgments of High Court are set aside. M. M. T. C. Ltd. & Anr. vs. Medchl Chemicals & Pharma (P) Ltd. & Anr. 2001 (5) Suppl. SCR 265 = 2002 (1) sec D 234; State of Orissa and Another v. Saro} Kumar Sahoo 2005 (5) Suppl. SCR 548 =(2005) 13 SCC 540 and Eicher Tractors Ltd. v. Harihar Singh (2006) 12 SCC 763 relied on. Jambu Prasad v. Mohammad Nawab Aftab Ali Khan E AIR 1941 PC 16 referred to. Case Law Reference: 2001 (5) Suppl. SCR 265 relied on para 13 2005 (5 ) Suppl. SCR 548 Relied on para 13 F (2006) 12 sec 763 . Relied on para 13 AIR 1941 PC 16 Referred to para 16 CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal G Appeal No. 1508 of 2012. From the Judgment & Order 22.01.2009 of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Jabalpur Bench at Indore in Miscellaneous Criminal Case No. 1073 of 2008. H A 860 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2012] 8 S.C.R. WITH C.A. Nos. 1509, 1510, 1511, 1512, 1513, 1514, 1515, 1516, 1517, 1518, 1519, 1520, 1521, 1522, 1523, 1524, 1525, 1526, 1527, 1528, 1529, 1530, 1531, 1532, 1533, 1534, 1535, 1536, B 1537,~538, 1539, 1540, 1541, 1542, 1543, 1544, 1545, 1546, 1547, 1548, 1549, 1550, 1551, 1552, 1553, 1554, 1555, 1556, 1557, 1558, 1559, 1560 and 1561 of 2012. c D Sidharth Dave, Abhimanyu Singh, C.D. Singh for the Appellant. Ardhendumauli Kumar Prasad for the Respondent. The following Order of the Court was delivered ORDER 1. Leave granted. 2. Heard learned counsel on either side. 3. We are disposing of all these fifty four appeals by a E common order since the identical issues arise for consideration in all these appeals. For the purpose of disposal of these appeals, we may refer to the facts in Criminal Appeal arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 3149 of 2010, treating the same as the leading case. F 4. The respondent herein, who was functioning as the Deputy Registrar, Khargone, was charge-sheeted for offences punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 read with Sections 34 and 1208 of the India
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.