STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH versus YOGENDRA SINGH JADON & ANR.

Citation: [2020] 5 S.C.R. 70 · Decided: 31-01-2020 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: L. NAGESWARA RAO · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
70
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2020] 5 S.C.R.
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
v.
YOGENDRA SINGH JADON & ANR.
(Criminal Appeal No. 175 of 2020)
JANUARY 31, 2020
[L. NAGESWARA RAO AND HEMANT GUPTA, JJ.]
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973:
s. 482  – Charge-sheet u/s. 420 r/w. 120-B IPC – Against
father of the respondents  – Alleging inter alia that the accused had
granted cash credit to the respondents (his sons) without proper
documents, when he was President of the Bank  – High Court
quashed the criminal proceedings qua the respondents holding that
no criminal case made out against them – Appeal to Supreme Court
– Held: The facts of the case prima facie disclose an offence u/ss.
420 and 120-B IPC against the respondents – High Court was not
right in quashing the charges against the respondents.
s. 482 – Jurisdiction under – Scope of – Held: Power u/s.
482 cannot be exercised where the allegations are required to be
proved in the Court of law.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD:  The High Court examined the entire issue as to
whether the offence under Sections 420 and 120-B IPC is made
out or not at pre-trial stage.  The respondents are beneficiary
of the grant of cash credit limit when their father was the
President of the Bank.  The power under Section 482 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 cannot be exercised where
the allegations are required to be proved in court of law.  The
manner in which loan was advanced without any proper
documents and the fact that the respondents are beneficiary of
benevolence of their father prima facie disclose an offence under
Sections 420 and 120-B IPC. Other officials of the Bank have
been charge-sheeted for an offence under Sections 13(1)(d) and
13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.  The charge
under Section 420 IPC is not an isolated offence but it has to
be read along with the offences under the Act to which the
   [2020] 5 S.C.R. 70
70
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
71
respondents may be liable with the aid of Section 120-B of IPC.
Therefore, the order of the High Court quashing the charges
against the respondents is not sustainable in law. [Para 5 and 6]
[73-C-F]
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal
No. 175 of 2020.
From the Judgment and Order dated 04.05.2016 of the High
Court of Madhya Pradesh, Bench at Indore in Criminal Revision No.
260 of 2014.
Dhruv Tamta, Ms. Tanvi Bhatnagar, Harsh Parashar, Advs. for
the Appellant.
Arvind Varma, Sr. Adv., Ms. Saloni Tangri, Ms. Jasleen Chahal,
Farrukh Rasheed, Advs. for the Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
HEMANT GUPTA, J.
1. The State is aggrievedagainst an order passed by the High
Court of Madhya Pradesh on 2nd May, 2016 whereby the proceedings
against the respondents, both sons of late Manohar Singh Jadon, for
an offence under Sections 420, 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, 18601
were quashed.
2. A charge sheet for the offences under Sections 420, 406, 409,
120B IPC and 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act,
19882 was filed on 9th July, 2008 consequent to registration of FIR
No. 3 of 2007 on 23rd June, 2007. The allegation was that Manohar
Singh Jadon, deceased father of the respondents in connivance with
other employees of District Cooperative Kendriya Bank Maryadit,
Shajapur3 committed financial irregularities on the basis of forged
documents by misusing his post and by providing fake loan to the
relatives.  Manohar Singh Jadon was President of the Bank from 5th
February, 1997 to 26th March, 2002 and from 27th March, 2002 to 7th
May, 2004.  Harshvardhan Singh Jadon (accused-respondent No. 2) is
the proprietor of M/s. Harshvardhan & Brothers whereas Yogendra
1 for short, ‘IPC’
2 for short, ‘Act’
3 for short, ‘Bank’
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH v. YOGENDRA SINGH JADON
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
72
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2020] 5 S.C.R.
Singh (accused-respondent No. 1) is the proprietor of M/s. Sarohar
Trading Company.  Ghanshyam Sharma, General Manager, Ramanlal
Acharya, Manager, Ram Singh Yadav, General Manager were also
arrayed as accused.  It was alleged that accused Harshvardhan Singh
Jadon submitted an application on 2nd November, 2000 for grant of cash
credit limit of Rs.25 lakhs and that the cash credit limit was sanctioned
without following the due procedure.  It was also alleged that mortgage
deed was not registered nor signature of original loanee was found on
the mortgage paper.  It is also pointed out that an amount of
Rs.59,88,327/- was balance on 1st December, 2001 even after depositin
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.