SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2002 Supreme(SC) 91

2002(3) Supreme 207
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
K.T. Thomas & S.N. Phukan, JJ.
Inspector of Police, CBI -Appellant
versus
B. Raja Gopal & Ors. -Respondents
Criminal Appeal No. 95 of 2002
(Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 2843 of 2001)
Decided on 21-1-2002

Headnote:Criminal Procedure Code, 1973-Section 482-Criminal proceedings in a case under Sections 420, 468 and 471 IPC quashed by High Court when case had reached almost penultimate stage -Bank was defrauded and High Court found that compromise had taken place whereby disputed amount due from accused had been deposited-Ground was not enough for quashing criminal proceedings-It could have been taken as ground for pleading mitigation at final stage-Premature quashment was not in accordance with law and impugned order was liable to be set aside. (Paras 2 & 4)

       

ORDER

Leave granted.

2. When a trial was in progress and reached almost the penultimate stage, the High Court stepped in and quashed the criminal proceedings. The aggrieved state has come up with its appeal. The case involved offences under Sections 420, 468 and 471-IPC etc., on the allegation that Canara Bank was defrauded. One of the premise adopted by the High Court was that there was a compromise between the bank officials and the accused and the disputed amount found due from the accused has been paid later. Even assuming that the said stand of the accused is correct, that was not enough for quashing the criminal proceedings. Perhaps that would have been a ground for pleading mitigation at the final stage.

3. Mr. Natarajan, learned senior counsel contends that even apart from the payment made, the accused is able to establish that there was neither any intention to cheat nor was there any act of forgery. These are matters for the trial court to reach when the final conclusion is made. We do not express any opinion on these aspects on merits.

4. Nonetheless, we are of the view that the premature quashment made by the High Court is not in accordance with law. We, therefore, allow this appeal and set aside the impugned judgment.

5. We direct the trial court to proceed with the trial, and complete the examination of the remaining witnesses. The case shall be disposed of as expeditiously as possible.

Appeal allowed.

***************

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top