Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Navin Chawla, J.
Sarabjit Singh Ahluwalia - Appellant
Versus
The State of NCT of Delhi - Respondent
Cr.M.C. 4778 of 2022 & Cr.M.A. 19243 of 2022
Decided On : 22-03-2024
Section 482 - Criminal Procedure Code - 420 IPC - This judgment discusses the application of Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 and the framing of charge under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The court analyzed the evidence related to the encashment of a Fixed Deposit Receipt (FDR) and the authority to present the FDR for encashment, emphasizing the absence of an endorsement on the FDR and the relevance of the petitioner's signatures on the back of the FDR. The court referred to the judgments in Dr.Vimla v. Delhi Administration, 1963 Supp (2) SCR 585 and Parminder Kaur v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr., (2010) 1 SCC 322 to interpret the legal provisions and their applicability to the case.
Fact of the Case:
The case involved a petition filed under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, challenging the order for framing a charge under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioner, related to the encashment of a Fixed Deposit Receipt (FDR) and allegations of forgery.
Finding of the Court:
The court emphasized that at the stage of framing charges, the prosecution is not required to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt but only on the yardstick of suspicion of a prima facie case being made out against the accused. The court considered the absence of an endorsement on the FDR and the relevance of the petitioner's signatures on the back of the FDR, and concluded that no fault could be found in the impugned order.
Issues: The issues revolved around the sufficiency of grounds for framing a charge under Section 420 of the IPC, the absence of an endorsement on the FDR, and the relevance of the petitioner's signatures on the back of the FDR.
Ratio Decidendi: The court applied the principle that at the stage of framing charges, the probative value of materials on record need not be gone into, and the court has to merely examine the evidence placed by the prosecution to determine whether there are sufficient grounds to proceed against the accused on the basis of charge sheet material.
Final Decision: The petition was dismissed, and the pending application was disposed of as being rendered fructuous. The court clarified that its observations in the judgment shall not influence the learned Trial Court during the adjudication of the proceedings pending before it.
JUDGMENT
Navin Chawla, J. (Oral) - This petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short, `Cr.P.C.') challenging the Order dated 14.07.2022 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-03, South East District, Saket Courts, New Delhi in Criminal Revision Petition No.776/2019, titled Sarabjit Singh Ahluwalia v. The State of NCT of Delhi, dismissing the said Revision Petition.
2. The above Revision Petition was filed by the petitioner challenging the Order dated 04.10.2019 passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, South East District, Saket Courts, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the `Trial Court') in the proceedings emanating from FIR No.39/2017 registered at Police Station: Amar Colony, South East District, New Delhi, whereby the learned Trial Court ordered framing of charge under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short, `IPC') against the petitioner herein, while discharging other accused persons.
3. It is the case of the prosecution that the above FIR was registered on the complaint of Mr.Suryadeep Ahluwalia, son of late Mr.J.S. Ahluwalia, stating that his father Late Mr.J.S. Ahluwalia had an FDR dated 18.07.2022 with Canara Bank, East of Kailash, New Delhi with maturity value of Rs.2,00,527/-. It is alleged that though the photocopy of the FDR was with the complainant, the original FDR was not traceable. The Complainant alleged that when he went to the Canara Bank to inquire about the FDR, he came to know that the said FDR has already been encashed by the petitioner, who is the elder brother of his father, in connivance with the bank officials by forging his signature.
4. The prosecution, on investigation, alleges that the said FDR bears the signatures of the petitioner on the backside of the same. It is alleged that the employees of the bank were examined and it came to record that the original FDR in question is with the bank but there was no marking on the back of the certificate of the FDR that the said FDR is under any lien, guarantee, or security with the said bank. It is alleged that the FDR was enchased by the bank in the name of the Company-M/s Suntime Energy Limited on the mandate of the petitioner herein.
5. The prosecution further alleges that the bank officials maintained that the FDR had been encashed strictly in accordance with the banking guidelines and in the discharge of the loan transaction which was taken by the abovementioned Company. The proceeds from the FDR were also credited to the account of the said Company.
6. As far as the allegation of forging the signature of late Sh.J.S. Ahluwalia is concerned, the prosecution did not find any evidence for the same.
7. On the completion of the investigation, the chargesheet and a supplementary chargesheet under Section 420/34 of the IPC were filed.
8. The learned Trial Court, vide Order dated 04.10.2019, proceeded to frame a charge under Section 420 of the IPC against the petitioner. As noted hereinabove, the petitioner challenged the same by way of a Revision Petition, which came to be dismissed by the Impugned Order.
9. The learned counsel for the petitioner, placing reliance on the correspondences dated 20.04.2017, 06.06.2017, and 04.10.2017 by the officials from the Canara Bank to the police, submits that the Canara Bank has certified that the Company had availed of the loan/credit facility from the Canara Bank for about 10 years; all the directors, including Mr.J.S. Ahluwalia, had offered their personal guarantees for repayment of the said loan amount; all the Directors had also given FDRs in their personal capacity as a margin/collateral security for various credit facilities availed by the Company; in the year 2009, the loan account became irregular and, in order to recover the overdue amount, the bank was compelled to adjust the FDR of the directors to the loan amount of the said Company in the year 2011; and that the signatures of the petitioner on the back of the subject FDR in the name of
At the stage of framing charges, the court is required to determine whether there are sufficient grounds to proceed against the accused on the basis of charge sheet material, without delving into the....
Rare and exceptional circumstances for interference in order framing charge
Criminal breach of trust and forgery by Bank officer – Mere depositing defalcated amount subsequently, does not exonerate accused/petitioner from charge of commission of offence which has been ultima....
At the discharge stage under Section 227 Cr.P.C., the court must consider only the prosecution's materials, and strong suspicion is sufficient to proceed with the trial.
Point of law : In exercising powers under Section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the settled position of law is that the Judge while considering the question of framing the charges under the ....
The prosecution must prove entrustment and dishonest intent in offenses under sections 409 and 468 IPC, failure of which leads to acquittal.
At CrPC Section 227 discharge stage, prima facie case assessed sans detailed evidence scrutiny; submitted photocopies qualify as primary evidence; investigating officers may obtain voluntary specimen....
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
