Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
B.V. NAGARATHNA, AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, JJ.
Vishal Noble Singh – Appellant
Versus
State of Uttar Pradesh and Another – Respondents
Criminal Appeal Nos. 385-386 of 2024, SLP (Crl.) Nos. 2389, 3337 of 2023
Decided On : 24-01-2024
Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 406, 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120B – Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 482 – Cheating, forgery and conspiracy – Cognizance of offences and summoning of accused – Accused have allegedly committed an offence by fabricating documents and on the basis of fabricated and forged documents have operated School since 2014 and have collected fees from girl students and distributed the same among themselves – There is no reference to any document which has been forged so as to be used as a genuine document and much less is as there any criminal conspiracy which can be imputed to appellants – There is also no cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property, nor has any documents referred to any forgery or security or any forgery for the purpose of cheating – While entertaining an application for quashing an FIR at initial stage, test to be applied is whether uncontroverted allegations prima facie establish the offence – Criminal process cannot be utilized for any oblique purpose – Court should quash those criminal cases where chances of an ultimate conviction are bleak and no useful purpose is likely to be served by continuation of a criminal prosecution – In recent years machinery of criminal justice is being misused by certain persons for their vested interests and for achieving their oblique motives and agenda – Courts have to be vigilant against such tendencies and ensure that acts of omission and commission having adverse impact on fabric of our society must be nipped in the bud – Impugned order of High Court set aside and consequently, FIR, charge-sheet and all consequent proceedings initiated pursuant thereto stand quashed. (Paras 16, 17, 20, 21 and 25)
Facts of the case:
Complainant-Respondent No. 2 registered FIR under Sections 406, 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120B of Indian Penal Code, 1860. High Court passed a common order dismissing Applications preferred by the Accused-Appellants under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.
Findings of Court:
While second respondent-complainant has made grave allegations against appellants herein and on whose behalf a charge-sheet has also been filed against such allegations has failed to appear before this Court to justify the same. Such acts would not only cause deep fissures and mistrust between people and also unnecessarily burden law courts and criminal justice system.
Result : Appeals allowed.
JUDGMENT :
B.V. NAGARATHNA, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. The present appeals arise out of the common order dated 24.01.2023 passed by the Allahabad High Court dismissing the applications preferred by the Accused-Appellants under Section 482 bearing Nos. 33816/2022 and 33242/2022.
3. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that Complainant-Respondent No. 2 registered a First Information Report (for short ‘FIR’) bearing No. 476/2017, under Sections 406, 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short “IPC”). The allegations in the FIR can be crystallized as under:
(ii) The Secretaries and other officers of CNI and DEB, in collusion with the Accused-Appellants, were fraudulently running the institution by fabricating matriculation and other documents.
(iii) The institution was functioning without affiliation from the Council for the Indian School Certificate Examinations (CISCE) Board.
(iv) The Accused-Appellants and the co-accused persons were embezzling fees paid by many girl students to the extent of Rs. 13 crores.
4. Upon registration of the FIR, the Accused-Appellant, Vishal Noble Singh, filed W.P. No. 18274/2017 before the Allahabad High Court which granted interim relief against his arrest. The Investigating Officer registered a charge sheet under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short “Cr.P.C.”) on 04.10.2017 on concluding that sufficient grounds were present to prosecute the Accused-Appellants and other co-accused. Therefore, the Investigating Officer requested for summoning the witnesses and evidence. On 16.10.2019, the Allahabad High Court dismissed the Writ Petition No. 18274/2017 for want of prosecution. In view of the charge-sheet, the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Allahabad passed an order on 21.09.2022 whereby it took cognizance of the offences and summoned the Accused-Appellants (Vishal Noble Singh and Vinod Bihari Lal) on 05.10.2022.
5. Being aggrieved by the order of the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Allahabad, the Accused-Appellants (Vishal Noble Singh and Vinod Bihari Lal) filed the Applications under Section 482 bearing No. 33816/2022 and No. 33242/2022 respectively before the Allahabad High Court praying to quash the FIR No. 476/2017 on the ground that even though the institution enjoyed constitutional protection under Article 30 of the Constitution, the police had maliciously filed a vague FIR where even the broad allegations did not attract the ingredients of any of Sections of the IPC.
6. The High Court passed a common order dismissing the Applications preferred by the Accused-Appellants. The High Court took note of the report received by the Investigating Officer from the District Inspector of Schools, Allahabad which stated that there were complaints about the operation of the institution without requisite permission. The High Court reasoned that the allegations of the nature that were the subject matter of the case could only be considered based on evidence at the appropriate stage of trial. It held that the High Court could not exercise its discretionary jurisdiction when there is a dispute on the factual aspects, vide Neeharika Infrastructure (P) Ltd. vs. State of Maharashtra, (2021) 19 SCC 401 (“Neeharika Infrastructure”).
7. Hence, these appeals.
8. We have heard learned senior counsel for the Accused-Appellants, Sri V. Giri, Sri Kavin Gulati and Sri Siddhartha Dave and learned senior counsel Sri Ardhendhumauli Kumar Prasad, Additional Advocate General for the respondent-State. The Complainant- Respondent No. 2, though served, has not appeared before this Court. We have perused the material on record.
9. During the course of submission
Criminal process cannot be utilized for any oblique purpose – Court should quash those criminal cases where chances of an ultimate conviction are bleak and no useful purpose is likely to be served by....
A second prosecution for the same offense and facts is barred by the principles of double jeopardy. Furthermore, post-trial commencement, investigating agencies cannot conduct further investigations ....
A person can be held liable for forgery and cheating if they collude in the creation and use of a forged document, even if they are not the direct maker of that document.
The court ruled that the absence of dishonest intention in the allegations against the petitioners justified quashing the criminal proceedings under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.
In the event a revision is lawfully instituted before High Court but same is thereafter found to be not maintainable on some other ground, it would be open to High Court to treat the same as a petiti....
Point of Law : Power conferred under Section 482 of the Code to quash criminal proceedings for non-compoundable offences under Section 320 of Code can be exercised having overwhelmingly and predomina....
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
