Back
2006(1) Supreme 195
Supreme Court of India
(From Gujarat High Court)
Y.K. Sabharwal, CJI., B.N. Srikrishna, J.
Rameshchandra Nandlal Parikh —Appellant
versus
State of Gujarat & Anr. —Respondents
Special Leave Petition (Crl.) Nos. 3462-3472 of 2004
With
Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 6200/2004
Decided on 13-1-2006
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellant : K.T.S. Tulsi, Sr. Advocate, M.L. Verma, Sr. Advocate, I.H. Syed, Varinder Kumar Sharma and Satya Mitra Advocates.
For the Respondent No. 1 : Ms. Vibha Datta Makhija and Ms. Hemantika Wahi, Advocates.
For the Respondent No. 2 : R.F. Nariman, Sr. Advocate, Mukul Rohtagi, Sr. Advocate, K.G. Vakharia, Sr. Advocate, Ms. Avni Mehta, Mahesh Agarwal, E.C. Agrawala, Rishi Agrawala and Manu Krishnan, Advocates.
Held : In the facts of the present case, we are satisfied that the complaints, which were filed in respect of malfeasance and misfeasance within the jurisdiction of the Ahmedabad Police, were not in respect of the same cognizable offence or the same occurrence giving rise to one or more cognizable offences, nor were they alleged to have been committed in the course of the same transaction or the same occurrence as the ones alleged in First C.R.No. 67/2001. There is a further distinction in that while First C.R.No. 67/2001 pertained to cases concerning one Ketan Parikh and entities associated with him in the crime, the subsequent complaints pertained to other parties. Further, the FIR being investigated pertained only to criminal acts relating to the Mandvi Branch (Mumbai), while the subsequent complaints being investigated by the State Police pertained to criminal acts at the Shahibaug (Ahmedabad) Branch of the Bank. In our view, the distinctions drawn by the High Court are fully justified. The High Court was right in observing that the FIRs, which were under challenge before it, were regarding independent and distinct offences. Hence, the FIRs could not be prohibited on the ground that some other FIR had been filed against the Petitioner in respect of other allegations made against the Petitioner. Moreover, the High Court was correctly cognizant of limitations while exercising its powers under Section 482 of the CrPC, which should not in any event, be exercised lightly. Reading the impugned judgment of the High Court as a whole, we are satisfied that there is no scope for interference by us. The High Court was justified in declining to exercise its powers under Section 482 of the CrPC and in refusing to interfere with the orders passed by the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate. (Paras 13 to 15)
Judgment
Srikrishna, J.—By these special leave petitions, Rameshchandra Nandlal Parikh (hereinafter "the Petitioner") has impugned the common judgment of the High Court of Gujarat (dated 7.5.2004) dismissing a series of criminal miscellaneous applications, which were intended to question the correctness of certain ongoing investigations into a large economic crime.
2. The Petitioner was the Managing Director (between 1973 and 1991) and thereafter. Chairman of the Second Respondent-Madhavpura Mercantile Co-Operative Bank Limited (hereinafter "the Bank") having its registered office at Shahibaug, Ahmedabad, Gujarat. The Bank was operating under the provisions of the Multi-State Cooperative Societies Act, 1984 (hereinafter "the Societies Act") and was also subject to other laws, such as the Banking Regulation Act, 1949. On 13.3.2001, the Reserve Bank of India, noticing the critical financial situation of the Bank, made a requisition to the Central Registrar under Section 48(7) of the Societies Act, to appoint an Administrator to manage the affairs of the Bank. Accordingly, an Administrator took over the management of the Bank. In the meanwhile, due to the inability of the Bank to repay its depositors, there was a public outery, and a Public Interest Litigation (Special Civil Application No. 2617/2001), was filed before the High Court of Gujarat. It prayed inter alia, for action being taken against those responsible for the adverse financial situation of the Bank, and also for directions to the Bank to repay all the monies of the Bank’s depositors, account holders, share holders etc. It was alleged in the Special Civil Application that the main branch at Shahibaug (Ahmedabad) and the Mandvi Mumbai Branch (Mumbai) were involved in a large economic scam, which involved inter alia, advancing large sums of money to persons of dubious antecedents without taking steps to verify their creditworthiness in violation of applicable banking procedures and regulations. It is pertinent to note that the Petitioner was arrayed as a party (Respondent No. 8) in the said writ petition.
3. On 21.04.2001, the Bank also filed a Criminal Complaint C.R. No. 67/2001, against the Petitioner and several others, for different offences under Sections 405, 406, 408, 409 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter "IPC"), read with Section 35A of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949. Subsequently, offences under Section 420, 468, 471 of the IPC read with Sections 18 and 24 of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949, were also added. The investigation of C.R.No. 67/2001 was transferred from Madhavpura Police Station to State CID (Crime). The Petitioner was arrested and remanded to police custody for some time in connection with the said investigation.
4. On 2.5.2001, the High Court of Gujarat made an order in the Public Interest Litigation (Special Civil Application No. 2617/2001) directing, inter alia, that the Central Bureau of Investigation (hereinafter "the CBI"), with the cooperation of the State CID (Crime), conduct an investigation into the deeds and misdeeds of the respondents, including the Petitioner. The investigation was also to go into the question of mismanagement on the part of the Bank and the concerned officers, who were found to have been involved in the criminal acts. The Petitioner was remanded to judicial custody by the CID (Crime) on the request of the CBI.
5. On 18.5.2001, the CBI registered a First Information Report (hereinafter "FIR") vide Crime No. RC4 (E) of 2001 in which the averments made in First C.R.No. 67/2001 were reproduced and the investigation arising out of First C.R.No. 67/2001 was taken over by the CBI. On 10.8.2001, although the Petitioner was granted bail in the crime being investigated by the CBI, he continued in custody consequent to an order of detention (dated 7.5.2001) made under the Prevention of Anti Social Activities Act, 1985 (hereinafter "PASA"). This order of detention was quashed by the Gujarat High Court on his wri
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
