Back
2012 Supreme(Mad) 1471
High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T. MATHIVANAN
R. Subramanium & Another
Versus
Union Government of India by Additional Superintendent of Police, CBI/ACB/Chennai
Crl.O.P.Nos.8348 of 2011 & 9611 of 2011
Decided On : 27-03-2012
For the Petitioners: N.R. Elango, Senior Counsel
For D. Vikaram Raj, A. Ramesh, Senior Counsel For B. Ravi, Advocates. For the Respondents: N. Chandrasekaran, Spl.Public Prosecutor for CBI Cases.
Headnote:
The Court quashed the criminal proceedings against the petitioners, a bank manager and a pharmaceutical company, under Sections 120B r/w 420 of IPC and Section 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, for alleged criminal conspiracy, cheating, and misuse of power. The Court held that the first information report did not disclose any cognizable offense and that the allegations were vague, unsubstantiated, and inherently improbable. The Court also found that the investigation was initiated malafide and with an ulterior motive to take revenge against the company for filing a previous petition against the CBI.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners, a bank manager and a pharmaceutical company, were accused of criminal conspiracy, cheating, and misuse of power in relation to a loan sanctioned by the bank to the company. The CBI registered a case against the petitioners based on a complaint alleging that the petitioners had inflated the value of the properties offered as security for the loan, undervalued the company's assets, and submitted false documents to the bank. The petitioners filed a petition under Section 482 of the CrPC seeking to quash the criminal proceedings, arguing that the allegations were false and that the investigation was malafide.
Finding of the Court:
The Court found that the allegations in the first information report were vague, unsubstantiated, and inherently improbable. The Court noted that the CBI had failed to provide any evidence to support the allegations that the petitioners had inflated the value of the properties or undervalued the company's assets. The Court also found that the CBI had failed to disclose the source of the information on which the complaint was based. The Court held that the first information report did not disclose any cognizable offense and that the investigation was initiated malafide and with an ulterior motive to take revenge against the company for filing a previous petition against the CBI.
Issues: 1. Whether the allegations in the first information report disclosed any cognizable offense? 2. Whether the investigation was initiated malafide and with an ulterior motive?
Ratio Decidendi: The Court held that the allegations in the first information report did not disclose any cognizable offense because they were vague, unsubstantiated, and inherently improbable. The Court also found that the investigation was initiated malafide and with an ulterior motive to take revenge against the company for filing a previous petition against the CBI. The Court relied on the following principles: * The ingredients of the offense of criminal conspiracy under Section 120B of IPC are: * An agreement between two or more persons; * The agreement should be to do or cause to be done some illegal act or some act which is not illegal, by illegal means; * Some act besides the agreement was done by one or more parties in pursuance of it. * The term 'cheating' under Section 415 IPC means: * Whoever, by deceiving any person, fraudulently or dishonestly induces the person so deceived to deliver any property to any person, or to consent that any person shall retain any property, or intentionally induces the person so deceived to do or omit to do anything which he would not do omit if he were not so deceived, and which act or omission causes or is likely to cause damage or harm to that person in body, mind, reputation or property, is said to "cheat". * The ingredients of the offense of criminal misconduct by a public servant under Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 are: * The accused is a public servant; * The nature and extent of the pecuniary resources or property which were found in his possession; * It must be proved as to what were his known sources of income i.e. known to prosecution; * It must prove, quite objectively, that such resources or property found in possession of the accused were disproportionate to his known sources of income.
Final Decision: The Court allowed the petition and quashed the criminal proceedings against the petitioners.
1. Invoking the inherent jurisdiction of this court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. the petitions in Crl.O.P.Nos.8348 & 9611 of 2011 have been filed seeking the relief of quashing the criminal proceedings pertaining to the case in Crime No.RC/MA-1/2011 A 0012 pending investigation on the file of the respondent.
2. The petitioner R.Subramanium in Crl.O.P.No.8348 of 2011 is the first accused and the other petitioner viz., company under the name and style of Green Signal Bio Pharma Pvt. Ltd., Rep. by it's Managing Director, Mr.Sundarapanipoornan in Crl.O.P.No.9611 of 2011 is the second accused.
3. The respondent Union Government of India represented by the Additional Superintendent of Police CBI/ACB/Chennai in both the petitions is one and the same. the relief which is sought for in both the petitions, and the subject matter which is in issue in both the petitions, is also one and the same. These two petitions have therefore, been heard together and disposed of in this common order.
4. Before we delve into the facts which are absolutely necessary for the disposal of these petitions, this court finds that it may be quite relevant to place it on record the duties and responsibilities of the officials concerned while dealing with the complaints which are deserved and competent to be taken up for registration and investigation. This Court may put it in this way:
5. Industry, impartiality and integrity are the three cardinal principles, motto and mission as well of the Central Bureau of Investigation (in short CBI) which is the highest investigating agency of our land, intend to uphold the Constitution of India and law of the land, to provide leadership and direction to police forces and to act as the nodal agency in enhancing interstate and international cooperation in law enforcement.
6. Apart from judiciary the people of the land are reposing confidence and faith upon the functioning of this renowned institution. It shall not cave in itself to be criticized unfairly.
7. Complaints and source of information comes under Chapter 8 of CBI (Crime) Manual. In clause 8.2 it is envisaged that the Superintendent of Police (including those working in the Special Units) are required to have a preliminary look at each complaint and decide whether it falls within the purview of CBI and would merit its attention. In case the complaint pertains to a subject outside the purview of CBI or the allegations contained therein are too trivial or vague it should be forwarded at the earliest to the department concerned with an endorsement that no enquiry has been made by CBI. The disposal would be noted in the records maintained for this purpose.
8. In clause 8.3 it is stated that all other complaints would be analyzed with a view to see whether a criminal offence can be made out requiring any action by CBI. In case, the analysis reveals that the complaint deals with a substantial issue which falls within the ambit of CBI and needs further verification, the permission of the Competent Authority will be obtained to verify the same. The Competent Authority is one who could order registration of a regular case for the particular rank of officer against whom the complaint has been made.
9. In Clause 8.5, in order to ensure uniformity in dealing with complaints, the following broad guidelines are given.
Ordinarily, no verification of complaint of the following nature should be taken up except for special reasons;
i. Complaints which are anonymous and pseudonymous.
ii. Complaints containing vague and unverifiable allegations.
iii. Where the allegations relate to service matters, which can be better looked into the departmental authorities.
iv. Complaints of petty nature not involving specific allegations of bribery or corruption which can be better dealt with by the Vigilance Wing of the department or local police.
v. Complaints not otherwise falling within the purview of CBI.
vi. Complaints which have already been looked in to or are being looked in
