STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH CBI versus VIKRAM ANANTRAI DOSHI AND OTHERS

Citation: [2014] 10 S.C.R. 506 · Decided: 19-09-2014 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: DIPAK MISRA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
[2014] 10 S.C.R. 506 
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH CBI 
v. 
VIKRAM ANANTRAI DOSHI AND OTHERS 
(Criminal Appeal No. 2048 of 2014) 
SEPTEMBER 19, 2014 
[DIPAK MISRA AND VIKRAMAJIT SEN, JJ.] 
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: s.482 - Quashing of 
proceedings - Letter of credits issued by the banks in favour 
C of fictitious companies propped up by the accused and use 
of said LCs to siphon the funds from these banks -
Chargesheet for offence ulss.420, 406 /PC - Settlement of 
dispute by payment of debts - High Court quashed the 
proceedings - Held: The alleged offence was social wrong 
D having immense societal impact - The court's principal duty 
should be to scan the entire facts to find out the thrust of 
a/legations and the crux of the settlement - Quashment would 
neither help to secure the ends of justice nor prevent abuse 
of process of court nor can it be also said that as there is 
E settlement no evidence would come on record and there would 
be remote chance of conviction - High Court's order is wholly 
indefensible - Penal Code, 1860 - ss.420, 406. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
F 
HELD: The availing of money from a nationalized 
bank in the manner, as alleged by the investigating 
agency, vividly exposits fiscal impurity and, in a way, 
financial fraud. The modus operandi as narrated in the 
chargesheet cannot be put in the compartment of an 
G individual or personal wrong. It is a social wrong and it 
has immense societal impact. It is an accepted principle 
of handling of finance that whenever there is 
manipulation and cleverly conceived contrivance to avail 
of these kind of benefits it cannot be regarded as a case 
H 
506 
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH CBI v. 
507 
VIKRAM ANANTRAI DOSHI 
having overwhelmingly and predominantingly of civil 
A 
character. The gravity of the offence creates a dent in the 
economic spine of the nation. It is not such a case where 
one can pay the amount and obtain a "no due certificate" 
and enjoy the benefit of quashing of the criminal 
proceeding on the hypostasis that nothing more remains 
B 
to be done. The collec:tive interest of which the Court is 
the guardian cannot be a silent or a mute spectator to 
allow the proceedings to be withdrawn, or for that matter 
yield to the ingenuous dexterity of the accused persons 
to invoke the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the c 
Constitution or under Section 482 of the Code and quash 
the proceeding. It is not legally permissible. The Court is 
expected to be on guard to these kinds of adroit moves. 
The court's principal duty, at that juncture, should be to 
scan the entire facts to find out the thrust of allegations 
D 
and the crux of the settlement. It is the experience of the 
Judge comes to his aid and the said experience should 
be used with care, caution, circumspection and 
courageous prudence. In the case at hand, the Single 
Judge has not taken pains to scrutinize the entire 
conspectus of facts in proper perspective and quashed 
the criminal proceeding. The said quashment neither 
helps to secure the ends of justice nor does it prevent 
the abuse of the process of the Court nor can it be also 
said that as there is a settlement no evidence will come 
on record and there will be remote chance of conviction. 
Such a finding would be difficult to record. [Para 23] [524-
E-H; 525-A-G] 
E 
F 
Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and Anr. (2012) 10 SCC 
303; Narinder Singh & Ors. v. State of Punjab & Anr. 2014(4) 
G 
SCALE 195 - relied on. 
Madan Mohan Abbot v. State of Punjab (2008) 4 SCC 
582: 2008 (5) SCR 526; Rumi Dhar v. State of WB. (2009) 
6 SCC 364: 2009 (5) SCR 553; Central Bureau of H 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
508 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2014] 10 S.C.R. 
Investigation v. Duncans Agro (1996) 5 SCC 591 :1996 (3) 
Suppl. SCR 360; Nikhil Merchant v. C.B.I. (2008) 9 SCC 
677: 2008 (12) SCR 236; Central Bureau of Investigation v. 
A. Ravishanker Prasad and Ors. (2009) 6 SCC 351; Dimpy 
Gujral v. Union Territory through Administrator AIR 2012 SCW 
5333; State of Rajasthan v. Sambhu Kevat 2013(14) SCALE 
235; CBI, ACB v. Narendra Lal Jain & Ors. 2014 SCALE 137; 
Gopakumar B. Nair v. CBI and Anr. 2014 4 SCALE 659; 
Central Bureau of Investigation v. Jagjit Singh (2013) 10 SCC 
686 - referred to. 
Case Law Reference: 
2008 (5) SCR 526 
referred to 
Para 10 
2009 (5) SCR 553 
referred to 
Para 1" 
1996 (3) Suppl. SCR 360 referred to 
Para 14 
2008 (12) SCR 236 
referred to 
Para 14 
(2009) 6 sec 351 
referred to 
Para 1
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.