Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT NAGPUR
URMILA JOSHI-PHALKE
Rakesh, s/o. Upendra Singh – Appellant
Versus
State of Maharashtra, Officer-in-charge of Police Station Jalalkheda, Nagpur, District (Rural), Nagpur – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. applications for discharge challenged based on alleged misappropriation by applicants. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. details of the fraud involving loan applications by the applicants. (Para 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 3. discussion on the mpid act's applicability to the applicants’ actions. (Para 9 , 10 , 36) |
| 4. criteria for evaluating discharge applications and the definition of criminal establishment. (Para 13 , 16 , 17) |
| 5. ruling and decision to allow the revision applications partly. (Para 37 , 38) |
JUDGMENT :
1. Heard learned Senior Counsel Shri F.T.Mirza for applicants and learned Additional Public Prosecutor Shri Anant Ghongre for the State. Rule. Heard finally by consent.
2. By these revisions, applicants have challenged orders dated 13.6.2022 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nagpur rejecting their applications for discharge in connection with Crime No.304/2018 (Special Case No.539/2020) registered under Sections 120-B; 409; 411; 413; 420; 467; 468; and 471 of the IPC and 3 of the MPID Act below Exhs.36 and 37. By these revisions, applicants are challenging orders only to the extent of discharge of offences under Section 3 of the MPID Act and Sections 411 and 413 of the IPC.
3.
The applicants' actions of obtaining loans in farmers' names do not constitute deposits or fall under the MPID Act, justifying their discharge from related charges.
Applicants misrepresented loan transactions, which did not constitute 'deposits' under the MPID Act, thus the FIR was partially quashed.
Duping of public and financial fraud – Non-making out of offences under IPC cannot be equated with non-applicability of provisions of any specific law.
The court reaffirmed that at the discharge stage, the focus is solely on whether prima facie evidence supports the charges against the accused, without delving into extensive inquiries.
IBC Section 96 moratorium does not stay MPID Act Section 8 attachments of malafide transferred investor funds, absent debtor-creditor tie and due to distinct legislative fields with no repugnancy.
The allegations in the charge sheet would attract the essential ingredients of offences under Ss. 406 and 420 IPC and further Sec. 5 of the APPDFE Act.
The court established that transactions promising returns on deposits fall under the MPID Act, and the police are mandated to investigate when a cognizable offence is disclosed.
The court held that disputed facts regarding the nature of transactions and intent behind non-payment necessitate a full trial, preventing the quashing of the FIR.
The MPIDFE Act allows for the attachment of property to protect the interests of depositors, regardless of when the property was acquired. The affidavit filed by the competent authority complied with....
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
