The Division Bench of the Supreme Court consisting of Justices M.R. Shah and B.V. Nagarathna while setting aside the order of High Court held that merely because some other persons who might have committed the offences, but were neither arrayed as accused nor charge-sheeted cannot be a ground to quash the criminal proceedings against the accused charge-sheeted after a thorough investigation.
Facts and Procedural History
Criminal proceedings were initiated against the private respondent herein and others. The complainant – bank filed the complaint under Section 200 CrPC. before the Court of learned Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate. Thereafter an FIR was registered u/s 120B, 408, 409, 420 and 149 of IPC. On completing the investigation, a charge-sheet was filed against the private respondent herein. The private respondent herein – original accused no.1 approached the High Court to quash the criminal proceedings in exercise of powers under Section 482 CrPC. The High Court quashed the criminal proceedings against the private respondent mainly on the ground that in absence of the original accused nos. 2 and 3 in the PCR and in absence of the officers of the drawee bank informing the payee’s banker with reference to dishonour of one of the cheques well within the time stipulated in the Clearing House Rules, they can be said to have committed the offences under Sections 408 and 409 of IPC, the charge-sheet could not have been filed only against accused no.1. By observing so the High Court has quashed the criminal proceedings against the original accused no.1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court quashing the criminal proceedings against the original accused no.1, the original complainant preferred the present appeal.
Observations of the Court
The Court observed that:
“Having gone through and considered the reasoning given by the High Court while quashing the criminal proceedings against original accused no.1, we are of the opinion that the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court quashing the criminal proceedings against the private respondent herein – original accused no.1 is unsustainable, both, in law and on facts. The High Court has observed that in absence of the officers of the drawee bank informing the payee’s banker with reference to dishonour of one of the cheques well within the time stipulated in the Clearing House Rules which amounts to offence under Sections 408 and 409 of IPC, without the presence of accused nos. 2 and 3 in the PCR, the charge-sheet could not have been filed only against accused no.1. The aforesaid cannot be a ground to quash the criminal proceedings against the accused who was charge-sheeted by the Investigating Officer after thorough investigation.”
Judgment
The appeal was allowed accordingly, and the impugned common judgment and order passed by the High Court quashing the criminal proceedings against the private respondent no.2 – original accused no.1 was quashed and set aside.
Case Name: M/S Suvarna Cooperative Bank Ltd vs State of Karnataka & Anr
Citation: Criminal Appeal Nos. 1535 Of 2021
Bench: Justice M.R. Shah, Justice B.V. Nagarathna
Decided on: 9th December 2021
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com
Picture Source :
