STATE OF MAHARASHTRA versus AVINASH

Citation: [2017] 8 S.C.R. 896 · Decided: 07-09-2017 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: N.V. RAMANA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

[2017] 8 S.C.R. 896 
A 
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA 
v. 
AVINASH 
(Criminal Appeal No. 1580 of2017) 
B 
SEPTEMBER 07, 2017 
[N. V. RAMANA AND DR. D.Y. CHANDRACHUD, JJ.J 
Administration of justice - Abuse of process of law - FIR 
alleging that the complainant had been fraudulently induced to part 
C with Rs 2. 74 crores by way of investment - Pursuant thereto, 
offences registered under various provisions of /PC and uls. 3, MPID 
Act, 1999 - Respondent arrested but granted bail in terms of the 
undertaking filed by him - His bank accounts attached uls.102, 
CrPC - Application by respondent before Division Bench in High 
Court praying for quashing of FIR and de-freezing his bank 
D accounts, subsequently withdrawn - Application by respondent 
before Single Judge in High Court for de-freezing his bank accounts 
- Single Judge directed lifting of the restraint on the operation of 
bank accounts of the respondent - Plea of appellant-State that as 
the respondent withdrew his application before the Division Bench, 
E it was an abuse of process to seek and obtain similar relief before 
Single Judge - Held: On facts, the filing of application before Single 
Judge for quashing the FJR and for de-freezing the bank accounts 
constituted a manifest abuse of process - Single Judge was not 
apprised of the fact that the earlier application seeking virtually 
the same relief had not been pressed before the Division Bench and 
F had been withdrawn -
Order of Single Judge set aside -
Maharashtra Protection of Interest of Depositors (In Financial 
Establishments) Act, 1999- ss.3, 4, 5, 7 and 14 - Code of Criminal 
Procedure, 1973 - ss.102, 482 - Penal Code, 1860 - ss. 406, 420, 
506 and 120B. 
G 
Maharashtra Protection of Interest of Depositors (Jn 
H 
Financial Establishments) Act, 1999 - ss. 4, 5, 7 and 14 - Overriding 
power - Effect of - FIR alleging that respondent fraudulently 
induced the complainant to part with Rs 2.74 crores by way of an 
investment - Pursuant thereto, offences registered under various 
provisions of /PC and uls. 3, MPID Act, 1999 - Bank accounts of 
896 
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA v. AVINASH 
897 
respondent attached uls.102, CrPC - Whether bank accounts of A 
the respondent could have been frozen by taking recourse to the 
provisions of Cr PC notwithstanding the special provisions contained 
in the MPJD Act - Held: Jn terms of the view taken in the present 
case, it is not necessary to address the said question of law - Code 
of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - s.102. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: The High Court was moved in an application under 
Section 482 of the CrPC, with a specific prayer for de-freezing 
B 
his bank accounts. This prayer, together with the other reliefs 
.(including that for quashing the FIR) was not pressed and the c 
application was disposed of as withdrawn on 29 June 2016 by the 
Division Bench. In this background, the filing of another 
application before the Single Judge on 1 July 2016 for quashing 
the FIR and for de-freezing the bank accounts constituted a 
manifest abuse of process. The Single Judge was evidently not 
apprised of the fact that the earlier application seeking virtually D 
the same relief had not been pressed before the division bench 
and had been withdrawn. Consequently, there is merit in the 
submission urged on behalf of the State. The Single Judge ought 
not to have entertained the application under Section 482 in 
respect of the same relief which had been given up earlier before 
E 
the Division Bench of the High Court on 29 June 2016. In terms 
of the view taken in the present case, it is not necessary to address 
the question of law adverted to by the High Court. [Paras 12 and 
13) [902-F-H; 903-A-B) 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE ruRISDICTION : Criminal Appeal 
F 
No.1580of2017. 
· 
From the final Judgment and Order dated 18.08.2016 passed by 
the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Nagpur Bench, Nagpur in 
Criminal Application (APL) No.459of2016. 
Ms. Deepa Kulkarni, Nishant Ramakantrao Katneshwarkar, Advs. 
G 
for the Appellant. 
Arjun Vinod Bobde, Ms. Richa Rahlan, Ms. Praneeta Sharma, 
Amarendra Kumar Singh, Anand Mishra, Advs. for the Respondent. 
H 
898 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2017] 8 S.C.R. 
A 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
DR. D.Y. CHANDRACHUD, J. 1. Leave granted. 
2. This appeal arises from a judgment of a Single Judge of the 
Bombay High Court at its Nagpur Bench dated 18 August 2016 by which 
a criminal application filed by the respondent has bee

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.