C. Subbiah @ Kadambur Jayaraj vs Superintendent of Police

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2024 Supreme(SC) 467

B. R. GAVAI, SANDEEP MEHTA
C. Subbiah @ Kadambur Jayaraj – Appellant
Versus
Superintendent of Police – Respondent

Advocates appeared:
For the Petitioners: Mr. Dama Seshadri Naidu, Sr.Adv., Mr. Pai Amit, Adv., Ms. Pankhuri Bhardwaj, Adv., Mr. Abhiyudaya Vats, Adv., Mr. Tushar Bakshi, AOR.
For the Respondents: Mr. Sabarish Subramanian, AOR, Mr. C. Kranthi Kumar, Adv., Mr. Vishnu Unnikrishnan, Adv., Mr. Naman Dwivedi, Adv., Mr. Sarathraj B, Adv., Mr. Danish Saifi, Adv., Mr. M.P. Parthiban, AOR, Ms. Priyaranjani Nagamuthu, Ms. Shalini Mishra, Adv., Mr. R. Sudhakaran, Adv., Mr. Bilal Mansoor, Adv., Mr. Shreyas Kaushal, Adv., Mr. Amod Bidhuri, Adv., Mr. P.V.K. Deivendran, Adv.

Judgement Key Points

What is the proper approach to quash criminalproceedings when the underlying dispute is civil in nature and barred by Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act provisions? What is the court’s stance on constituting criminal offences (sections 420/406 IPC, 294(b), 506(ii)) from purely civil land transactions and benami arrangements? What are the conditions under which a criminal trial can be considered an abuse of process and liable to be quashed in cases involving benami land deals and settlement agreements?

Key Points: - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!)

What is the proper approach to quash criminalproceedings when the underlying dispute is civil in nature and barred by Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act provisions?

What is the court’s stance on constituting criminal offences (sections 420/406 IPC, 294(b), 506(ii)) from purely civil land transactions and benami arrangements?

What are the conditions under which a criminal trial can be considered an abuse of process and liable to be quashed in cases involving benami land deals and settlement agreements?

1. Leave granted.

2. The instant appeal by special leave is filed against the judgment dated 23rd April, 2018 passed by learned Single Judge of the Madras High Court, Madurai Bench dismissing the CRL.O.P.(MD) No. 3846 of 2013 preferred by the appellants herein seeking quashing of proceedings of Criminal Case No. 250 of 2012 pending in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate No. II, Kovilpatti for offences punishable under Sections 420 read with Section 120B, Section 294(b), Section 506(ii) read with Section 114 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860(hereinafter being referred to as the ‘IPC’).

Brief facts:-

3. Respondent No. 3(hereinafter being referred to as the ‘complainant’) lodged a complaint in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate No. II, Kovilpatti alleging inter alia that he was having a qualification of M.Sc., MD Graduate. He was appointed as a Government teacher on 8th October, 2007. Before being appointed as a Government teacher, the complainant was doing real estate business for earning his livelihood for past 16 years.

4. The complainant was knowing Kannabiran(hereinafter being referred to as ‘A-3’) who was working as a Manager in the State Bank of India(SBI), Kovilpatti Branc

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2024 Supreme(SC) 467

B. R. GAVAI, SANDEEP MEHTAC. Subbiah @ Kadambur Jayaraj – AppellantVersusSuperintendent of Police – Respondent

What is the proper approach to quash criminalproceedings when the underlying dispute is civil in nature and barred by Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act provisions?

What is the court’s stance on constituting criminal offences (sections 420/406 IPC, 294(b), 506(ii)) from purely civil land transactions and benami arrangements?

What are the conditions under which a criminal trial can be considered an abuse of process and liable to be quashed in cases involving benami land deals and settlement agreements?

Cases Referred (6)

B. R. GAVAI, SANDEEP MEHTA
C. Subbiah @ Kadambur Jayaraj – Appellant
Versus
Superintendent of Police – Respondent