Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
SAURABH BANERJEE
Vikas Garg – Appellant
Versus
State, Through Central Bureau of Investigation – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. overview of the factual background regarding the loan and charges. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 2. petitioners' arguments against the charges framed. (Para 7 , 8 , 9) |
| 3. court's analysis of the procedural aspects of charge framing. (Para 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15) |
| 4. guiding principles on charge quashing and judicial caution. (Para 16 , 18) |
| 5. court's findings and suspicion regarding petitioners' involvement in the case. (Para 19 , 20) |
| 6. final decision dismissing the petition. (Para 21 , 22) |
JUDGMENT :
SAURABH BANERJEE, J.
1. By way of the present petition under Section 482 read with Section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, Hereinafter referred to as ‘Cr.P.C.’, the petitioners seek setting aside of the order dated 07.09.2022 passed by the learned Special Judge (PC Act) (CBI)- 07, Rouse Avenue Court, New Delhi, Hereinafter referred to as ‘Trial Court’ in CC No.375/2019 whereby charges were framed against the petitioners under Section 120B read with Sections 420 /468/471 of the Indian Penal Code, Hereinafter referred to as ‘ IPC ’ and under Section 13 (2) read with Section13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act.
2. An FIR bearing no.RC-09/A/2017 dated 21.06.2
The court upheld that charges under criminal conspiracy can be framed based on prima facie evidence, and the burden is on the prosecution to show substantial suspicion to proceed to trial.
At the stage of framing charges, the court must exercise its judicial mind and consider the material placed before it comprehensively before arriving at the conclusion that there is sufficient ground....
The court affirmed that a director's criminal liability cannot be presumed without direct evidence of involvement in fraudulent activities; mere involvement in a company implicated in fraud is insuff....
The court has the power to shift and weigh the evidence at the stage of framing of charge to determine whether a prima facie case against the accused has been made out.
Bail in economic offences should be denied to protect the larger public and state interest and prevent tampering with witnesses.
For quashing criminal proceedings, allegations must clearly establish participation and responsibility; mere supervisory roles or lack of direct involvement do not suffice for culpability.
A lack of prima facie evidence for conspiracy negates the framing of criminal charges against a bank valuer who submitted inflated property valuations.
At the discharge stage, the court must determine if there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused based on the prosecution's evidence, without conducting a mini-trial.
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
