Back
RAMESH SINHA
Dilip Pahade S/o Late Shri W. N. Pahade – Appellant
Versus
State of Chhattisgarh – Respondent
ORDER :
1. Since all these three petitions filed under Section 482 of CrPC arise out of same Crime No. 33325034170114 registered at Police Station Jamul, District - Durg under Section 420/34 of IPC, they are clubbed and heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.
2. Heard Mr. Prafull N. Bharat, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. P.R. Patankar, learned counsel for the petitioners in CRMP No. 885/2017, respondent Nos. 4 to 11 in CRMP No. 507/2018 and respondent Nos. 5 to 12 in CRMP No. 1375/2018. Also heard Mr. Badruddin Khan, learned counsel for the petitioner in CRMP No. 507/2018 and for respondent No.4 in CRMP No. 1375/2020, Mr. Prasoon Agrawal and Ms. Aditi Singhvi, learned counsel for the petitioner in CRMP No. 1375/2020 and for respondent No. 3 in CRMP Nos. 507/2018 & 1375/2020 and Ms. Madhunisha Singh, learned Deputy Advocate General, appearing for the State/respondents.
3. CRMP No. 885 of 2017 and CRMP No. 507 of 2018 has been filed by the petitioners, who are the officers/employees of the State Bank of India and Borrower respectively for quashing of the F.I.R. registered at P.S. Jamul District – Durg (C.G.) bearing Crime No. 33325034170114 on 25.02.2017
The complaint under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C must disclose the commission of a cognizable offence, and vicarious liability cannot be imposed without proper allegations and evidence.
Criminal proceedings against bank officials for lawful actions under the SARFAESI Act constitute an abuse of process and are not maintainable.
The court emphasized the need for investigation into the allegations and the premature nature of the petition for quashing.
(1) Merely because on same set of facts with same allegations and averments earlier complaint is filed, there is no bar to lodge FIR with police station with same allegations and averments. However, ....
The court quashed proceedings under Section 340 CrPC, ruling that allegations of forgery lacked merit and constituted an abuse of process due to pending appeal in Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal.
The court emphasized that successive FIRs regarding the same incident are impermissible and quashed the FIR based on concealment of previous complaints and forum shopping, affirming the requirement o....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for judicious exercise of powers under Section 156(3) of the CrPC, the duty of the police to register an FIR only if a cognizable o....
Vicarious liability cannot be imposed on directors solely by virtue of their positions; specific allegations of wrongdoing must exist for criminal liability to be established.
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
