SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
B.R. GAVAI, K.V. VISWANATHAN, JJ.
HDFC Bank Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
The State of Bihar & ORS. – Respondents
Criminal Appeal No. OF 2024 [Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No.8906 of 2022]
Decided On : 22-10-2024
Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 34, 37, 120B, 201, 206, 217, 406, 409, 420 and 462 – Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 482 [Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 – Section 528] – Criminal breach of trust, cheating and conspiracy – Common intention – FIR does not show that appellant-bank had induced anyone since inception – Appellant-bank is a juristic person and as such, a question of mens rea does not arise – However, even reading FIR and complaint at their face value, there is nothing to show that appellant-bank or its staff members had dishonestly induced someone deceived to deliver any property to any person, and that mens rea existed at the time of such inducement – As such, ingredients to attract offence under Section 420 IPC would not be available – Likewise, since offences under Section 206, 217 and 201 of IPC require mens rea, ingredients of said Sections also would not be available against appellant-bank – Since there was no entrustment of any property with appellant-bank, ingredients of Section 462 IPC are also not applicable – Impugned judgment and order passed by Single Bench of High Court quashed and set aside qua appellant-bank. (Paras 19, 21, 25, 26 and 31)
Facts of the case:
Present appeal challenges judgment and order dated 8th June, 2022 passed by Single Bench of High Court of Judicature at Patna in Criminal Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 1375 of 2021 wherein Single Judge dismissed Writ Petition preferred by the present appellant, HDFC Bank to quash FIR registered against certain officials of appellant-bank for offences punishable under Sections 34, 37, 120B, 201, 206, 217, 406, 409, 420 and 462 of IPC.
Findings of Court:
Continuation of criminal proceedings against appellant-bank would cause undue hardship to appellant-bank.
Result : Appeal allowed.
JUDGMENT :
B.R. GAVAI, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. This appeal challenges the judgment and order dated 8th June, 2022 passed by the learned Single Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Patna in Criminal Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 1375 of 2021 wherein the learned Single Judge dismissed the Writ Petition preferred by the present appellant, HDFC Bank1[Hereinafter referred to as the ‘appellant-bank’.], to quash the First Information Report2[‘FIR’ for short.] being Case No. 549 of 2021 registered at Gandhi Maidan Police Station, Patna on 22nd November, 2021, against certain officials of the appellant-bank working at its Exhibition Road Branch, Patna for the offences punishable under Sections 34, 37, 120B, 201, 206, 217, 406, 409, 420 and 462 of the Indian Penal Code, 18603[‘IPC’ for short.].
3. The facts which give rise to the present appeal are as under:-
3.1 In October, 2021, Smt. Priyanka Sharma, Deputy Director of Income Tax (Investigation), Unit-2(2), Respondent No. 5 in the present proceedings, conducted a search and seizure operation in the case of several income-tax assessees including Shri Sunil Khemka (HUF), Smt. Sunita Khemka and Smt. Shivani Khemka at the third floor of Khataruka Niwas, South Gandhi Maidan, Patna. The said search and seizure operation was conducted on the basis of warrants of authorization issued under Section 132(1) of the Income Tax Act, 19614 [‘IT Act’ for short.]. During the course of the search, it was found that Smt. Sunita Khemka held a bank locker bearing No. 462 in the appellant-bank at its Exhibition Road Branch, Patna.
3.2 On the basis of the said operation, on 5th October, 2021, an order under Section 132(3) of the IT Act was served upon the Branch Manager of the appellant-bank at its Exhibition Road Branch, Patna by the concerned Authorized Officer, thereby directing the said branch of the appellant-bank to stop the operation of any bank lockers, bank accounts and fixed deposits standing in the names of Shri Sunil Khemka (HUF), Smt. Sunita Khemka and Smt. Shivani Khemka, among several other individuals and entities, with immediate effect. It was further clarified that contravention of the order would render the Branch Manager liable under Section 275A of the IT Act and the same would result in penal action.
3.3 In compliance of the aforesaid order, the appellant-bank stopped the operation of the bank accounts, bank lockers and fixed deposits of the individuals/entities mentioned in the order. Further, on 7th October,2021, the appellant-bank blocked the bank accounts of the income-tax assesses named in the order and also sealed the bank locker bearing No. 462 belonging to Smt. Sunita Khemka.
3.4 Subsequently, on 1st November, 2021, Respondent No. 5 issued an order to the Branch Manager of the appellant- bank at its aforementioned branch thereby directing the appellant-bank to revoke the restraint put on the bank accounts of Smt. Sunita Khemka and three other persons, in view of the restraining order dated 5th October, 2021 passed under Section 132(3) of the IT Act. Accordingly, the said persons, including Smt. Sunita Khemka, were to be allowed to operate their bank accounts. The said order was received by the concerned Branch Manager of the appellant-bank of 8th November, 2021 at 4:00 p.m. However, on 2nd November, 2021 at 11:24 a.m., an email was sent to the Branch Manager which contained the same order.
3.5 Thereafter, on 9th November, 2021, the concerned branch of the appellant-bank allowed Smt. Sunita Khemka to operate her bank locker bearing No. 462 and proper entries recording the operation of the said locker were made in the bank’s records.
3.6 Subsequently, on 20th November, 2021, Respondent No. 5 conducted a search and seizure operation at the aforementioned bank locker in the concerned branch of the appellant-bank wherein it was found that Smt. Sunita Khemka had operated her bank locker with the assistance of the concerned officers of the appellant-bank. This was validated by the entry made i
Arnab Manoranjan Goswami v. State of Maharashtra and others
Delhi Race Club (1940) Ltd. and others v. State of Uttar Pradesh and another
State of Haryana and others v. Bhajan Lal and others
R. Venkatkrishnan v. Central Bureau of Investigation
Neeharika Infrastructure Private Limited v. State of Maharashtra and others
Criminal breach of trust, cheating and conspiracy – Without existence of requisite mens rea no criminal prosecution will stand.
The court confirmed that a fiduciary relationship can give rise to criminal liability under IPC sections for failure to remit entrusted funds, emphasizing that both civil and criminal remedies may be....
The court ruled that prima facie evidence supports the allegations against the petitioner, affirming that inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. should be exercised cautiously and not for merit as....
A breach of contract does not constitute cheating unless fraudulent intent is proven at the outset of the agreement, as established in relevant legal precedents.
(1) Section 482 of Cr.P.C. is designed to achieve purpose of ensuring that criminal proceedings are not permitted to generate into weapons of harassment.(2) Civil disputes cannot be given cloak of cr....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.