Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Dipak Misra, Prafulla C. Pant, JJ.
State, Rep. by Inspector of Police Central Crime Branch — Appellant
versus
R. Vasanthi Stanley & Anr. — Respondents
Criminal Appeal Nos.2006-2009 of 2014
Decided on : 15-09-2015
2014 (10) SCALE 690; 2015 (9) SCALE 365; (1992) 4 SCC 305 – Relied upon
(2008) 9 SCC 677; (2008) 16 SCC 1; (1977) 2 SCC 699; (1988) 1 SCC 692; (2002) 5 SCC 257; (2011) 10 SCC 705; (2011) 5 SCC 708; (2009) 6 SCC 351; (1996) 5 SCC 581; (2007) 12 SCC 1; (2012) 10 SCC 303; (2014) 6 SCC 466; AIR 2012 SCW 5333; 2013 (14) SCALE 235; (2014) 5 SCC 364 – Referred
(b) Administration of Justice – Criminal law – An offence is an offence – Does not depend upon gender of the accused – Argument based on gender is neither constitutionally nor statutorily valid – A person committing a murder or getting involved in a financial scam or forgery of documents – Cannot claim discharge or acquittal on the ground of her gender. (Para 13)
(c) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Section 482 – Criminal proceedings in cases of grave criminal offence or serious economic offence or offence having potentiality to create a dent in the financial health of the institutions – Delay in trial or settlement of matter – Contention that continuation of such proceedings will increase load on criminal justice delivery system – No ground to quash such proceedings. (Para 14)
Facts of the case:
The first respondent, accused no.2, along with her husband submitted an application for home loan to the Centurion Bank of Punjab, presently known as HDFC Bank Ltd. for a sum of Rs.6 lakhs by depositing the sale deed dated 31.10.2001. The HDFC Bank found that documents were forged and accordingly filed a complaint with the Commissioner of Police, Chennai on 20.12.2005 which eventually gave rise to registration of FIR No. 579/06 dated 19.7.2006. Another FIR came to be lodged on 3.8.2006 by Bank of India, Cathedral Branch from which the couple had availed a loan of Rs.25 lakhs for a Company Development (Medicrops and Medigel) on the grounds that the documents were forged. On 10.7.2006, Vijaya Bank, G.N. Chetty Road Branch filed a complaint that the husband of the accused had applied for a mortgage loan of Rs.18 lakhs with forged documents by depositing the title deed and the wife stood as a surety.
Taking into consideration the complaints lodged by the aforesaid banks, the FIRs were registered.
Thereafter Syndicate Bank, Mylapore Branch filed a complaint with the Commissioner of Police, Chennai on 11.01.2007 to the effect that the husband of the first respondent herein had submitted an application for grant of home improvement loan for a sum of Rs.12 lakhs with forged documents and the wife was the guarantor and on that basis another FIR was registered.
Thus, the first respondent was a co-applicant in respect of the loans availed from HDFC Bank and Bank of India; and was a guarantor in respect of the loans availed from Vijaya Bank and Syndicate Bank.
After due investigation, chargesheets were filed and the proceedings before the trial court were instituted.
Thereafter the accused persons moved the High Court for quashing of the criminal proceedings. During the pendency of the cases, the husband, accused No.1 breathed his last.
The High Court came to hold that as “No due certificate” had been issued by the respective banking institutions and further settlements had been arrived at under the scheme, continuance of the prosecution would be an exercise in futility and, therefore, quashing of the criminal proceedings was required to prevent the abuse of the process of law. Being of this view, the High Court has quashed all the proceedings.
Finding of the Court:
High Court quashed the proceedings on fallacious grounds.
Result : Appeal allowed.
JUDGMENT
Dipak Misra, J.
The seminal issues that emanate for consideration, unequivocally on the bedrock of fiscal sanctity and decidedly on the plinth of prevalent mindset of borrowers from public financial institutions including banks, are whether a borrower or borrowers after availing finance by creating mortgage on the base of certain documents which, as alleged, are forged, and ingeniously adopt the same modus operandi to avail the benefit from number of banks, who in due course facing the problem set the criminal law in motion by lodging different FIRs and in the ultimate eventuate in an adroit manner enter into settlements and pay the amount and thereafter, knock at the doors of the High Court seeking exercise of inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) or the extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution for quashment of the criminal proceedings; and should the High Court on the foundation that the continuance of the criminal proceedings would be a Sisyphean endeavour after the settlement has taken place to quash the same; and further whether a former Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes can be allowed to advance a plea, obviously a remarkable one, that she had signed the documents either as a guarantor or as a co-applicant, showing deference to her late husband’s desire; and, therefore, this Court, in exercise of power under Article 136 of the Constitution, should not unsettle the common order by which the High Court has quashed criminal proceedings. Additionally, it has also become obligatory to decisively lay down whether continuance of such proceedings would be an unnecessary load on the criminal justice dispensation system and hence, there is neither any warrant nor justification for interference with the order of the High Court. We are invited by the astute proponements to dwell upon the said issues, and we shall do so in due course of our delineation.
2. The factual narrative has a narrow compass. The first respondent, accused no.2, along with her husband submitted an application for home loan to the Centurion Bank of Punjab, presently known as HDFC Bank Ltd. for a sum of Rs.6 lakhs by depositing the sale deed dated 31.10.2001. The HDFC Bank found that documents were forged and accordingly filed a complaint with the Commissioner of Police, Chennai on 20.12.2005 which eventually gave rise to registration of FIR No. 579/06 dated 19.7.2006. Another FIR came to be lodged on 3.8.2006 by Bank of India, Cathedral Branch from which the couple had availed a loan of Rs.25 lakhs for a Company Development (Medicrops and Medigel) on the grounds that the documents were forged. On 10.7.2006, Vijaya Bank, G.N. Chetty Road Branch filed a complaint that the husband of the accused had applied for a mortgage loan of Rs.18 lakhs with forged documents by depositing the title deed and the wife stood as a surety. Taking into consideration the complaints lodged by the aforesaid banks, the Inspector of Police, Central Crime Branch, Team-XII, Egmore Chennai, registered the FIRs and commenced the investigation. When the matter stood thus, the Syndicate Bank, Mylapore Branch filed a complaint with the Commissioner of Police, Chennai on 11.01.2007 to the effect that the husband of the first respondent herein had submitted an application for grant of home improvement loan for a sum of Rs.12 lakhs with forged documents and the wife was the guarantor and on that basis another FIR was registered and investigation took place. Thus, the first respondent was a co-applicant in respect of the loans availed from HDFC Bank and Bank of India and was a guarantor in respect of the loans availed from Vijaya Bank and Syndicate Bank. FIR Nos. in respect of HDFC Bank, Bank of India, Vijaya Bank and Syndicate Bank were 579/06, 643/06, 550/06 and 206/07 respectively. After due investigation, chargesheets were filed before the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai and Metropolitan Magistr
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
