IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
G. JAYACHANDRAN, J.
K.V. Ramamoorthy & Others - Appellant
Versus
State Represented by The Inspector of Police, Tiruppur & Another - Respondent
Crl.O.P. Nos. 29447 of 2018 & 2501 of 2019 & Crl.M.P. Nos. 17285 of 2018 & 1619 of 2019
Decided On : 28-07-2022
Section 482 - Quashing of FIR - 156(3) Cr.P.C - 409 IPC - 154(1) and (3) Cr.P.C
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners, senior officials of a bank, filed petitions to quash the FIR against them, alleging that the complaint did not disclose any offence against them and that the complaint was an attempt to harass them for taking action against the Branch Manager for misappropriation.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the complaint did not satisfy the parameters laid by the Supreme Court and was a dubious attempt to avoid paying tax and delay penal and departmental action against the Branch Manager.
Issues: The issues involved the validity of the complaint under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C and the vicarious liability of the senior bank officials for the acts of the Branch Manager.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the complaint did not disclose any offence against the senior officials and was a dubious attempt to avoid tax payment and delay action against the Branch Manager. The court also emphasized the need for the complaint to satisfy the parameters laid by the Supreme Court.
Final Decision: The Criminal Revision cases to quash the FIR against the petitioners were allowed, and the investigation against the Branch Manager was allowed to continue.
JUDGMENT
(Prayer: Criminal Original Petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to call for records and quash the case against the petitioner in Crime No.29 of 2018 on the file of the 1st respondent.
Criminal Original Petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to call for records and quash the case against the petitioners in Crime No.29 of 2018 on the file of the 1st respondent.)
Common Order:
1. The petitioner in Crl.O.P.No.29447/2018 is the Managing Director & Chief Executive Officer of Tamilnadu Mercantile Bank Ltd. The petitioners 1 and 2 in Crl.O.P.No.2501/2019 are the Regional Managers of the said Bank at Coimbatore between 2013 to 2016 and 2016 to 2018. The third petitioner was the Manager of the Bank at Tiruppur Branch.
2. These two petitions are filed to quash the FIR in Crime No.29/2018 on the file of the first respondent under his investigation. The FIR came to be registered pursuant to the order dated 02/11/2018 passed by the Judicial Magistrate II, Tiruppur in Crl.M.P.No.4390/2018, to register the complaint given by K.Manoharan and investigate.
3. As per the complaint, Mr.Manoharan the complainant is a businessman. He and his family members maintain Savings Bank Account and Recurring Deposit Account in TamilNadu Mercantile Bank, Arcot Branch and Tiruppur Branch. During the years 2011-2014, the first accused Saravanan was the Branch Manager of Tamilnadu Mercantile Bank Ltd, Arcot Branch. The first accused took advantage of the complainant's gullible nature, hatched a plan to cause wrongful loss to him and his family members, make a unlawful gain to himself, began to create false, bogus, forged and unauthorised cash/transfer transactions without the cheques signed by him or his wife. The first accused continues to do his act of fraud and cheating even after his transfer from Arcot Branch to Tirupur Branch. The complainant and his 5 family members have joint and single Savings Bank Account and OD accounts with Tiruppur Branch. The first accused, without any cheque signed by the complainant or his family members, had debited from his account and his family members account. During demonetization, he and his family members deposited demonetised money Rs.58,25,000/- in their accounts maintain at Tiruppur Branch. However, the first accused has falsely transacted to a tune of Rs.1,65,00,000/- into the complainants account without his knowledge and consent.
4. He came to know about the surreptitious entries in the accounts of his and his family members only on receipt of notice from Income Tax Department pointing to the abnormal and astronomical amounts been transacted by the complainant and his family members. Soon after receipt of the notice from Income Tax Department, he went to the bank personally and checked the entries and found several of the transactions reflected in his accounts were done without his knowledge and consent. The first accused Saravanan in connivance with the other accused 2 to 4, to cheat and to misappropriate the lawful amounts, due to the complainant and his family members had created the false entries and suppressed the actual state of affairs.
5. When the complainant met the 5th accused, who is the Managing Director and Chief Executive Officer of the Bank and reported about the misdeeds, he instead of taking action trying to shield, protect and manipulate. Instead of unearthing the fraud, the bank Senior Officials are not taking any genuine efforts to fix the wrong doers. As an eyewash, the bank higher officials have given complaint against the first accused only in respect of the complaint given by one Manimaran, owner of Shree Mother and Mother Exports regarding manipulation of his accounts. Alleging that a total sum of Rs.37,03,863/- been misappropriated from his account and his family members account by the erring officials. In the complaint, the statement of accounts of his and his relatives furnished to demonstrate, how he and his fam
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.
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.
The court emphasized the need for investigation into the allegations and the premature nature of the petition for quashing.
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....
High Court quashed FIRs against financial institution officials as mala fide counterblast to lawful recovery proceedings, lacking prima facie offence ingredients despite photocopy evidence, exercisin....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.