caselaws.org
Supreme Court of India
M/S Suvarna Cooperative Bank Ltd vs The State Of Karnataka on 9 December, 2021Author: M.R. Shah
Bench: M.R. Shah, Sanjiv Khanna
[REPORTABLE]
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NOS. 1535 OF 2021
M/S SUVARNA COOPERATIVE BANK LTD …Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ANR. …Respondents
JUDGMENT
M. R. Shah, J.
1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned
judgment and order dated 17.07.2014 passed by the High Court of
Karnataka passed in Criminal Petition No.5763 of 2013 by which
the High Court has quashed the criminal proceedings against the
private respondent herein for the offences under Sections 120B,
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by R
Natarajan
Date: 2021.12.09
408, 409, 420 and 149 of IPC, the original complainant has
16:44:42 IST
Reason:
preferred the present appeal.
1
2. That criminal proceedings were initiated against the private
respondent herein and others. The complainant – bank filed the
complaint under Section 200 Cr.P.C. before the Court of learned
Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore being PCR 15250
of 2009 (re-numbered as CC 22308 of 2012). Thereafter an FIR
(Crime No.127 of 2010) was registered before the Chickpet Police
Station under Sections 120B, 408, 409, 420 and 149 of IPC. That
on completing the investigation a charge-sheet was filed against
the private respondent herein. The private respondent herein –
original accused no.1 approached the High Court by way of
Criminal Petition No.5763 of 2013 to quash the criminal
proceedings in exercise of powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
2.1 By the impugned judgment and order the High Court has
quashed the criminal proceedings against the private respondent –
original accused no.1 mainly on the ground that in absence of the
original accused nos. 2 and 3 in the PCR and in absence of the
officers of the drawee bank informing the payee’s banker with
reference to dishonour of one of the cheques well within the time
stipulated in the Clearing House Rules, they can be said to have
committed the offences under Sections 408 and 409 of IPC, the
charge-sheet could not have been filed only against accused no.1.
2
By observing so the High Court has quashed the criminal
proceedings against the original accused no.1.
2.2 Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned
judgment and order passed by the High Court quashing the
criminal proceedings against the original accused no.1, the original
complainant has preferred the present appeal.
3. We have heard Shri Amith Kumar, learned counsel
appearing for the appellant and Shri H.V. Nagaraja Rao, learned
counsel appearing for the respondent.
4. We have perused and considered the impugned judgment
and order passed by the High Court and the reasoning given by
the High Court mentioned in paragraphs 7 and 8 while quashing
the criminal proceedings against the original accused no.1.
Having gone through and considered the reasoning given by the
High Court while quashing the criminal proceedings against
original accused no.1, we are of the opinion that the impugned
judgment and order passed by the High Court quashing the
criminal proceedings against the private respondent herein –
original accused no.1 is unsustainable, both, in law and on facts.
The High Court has observed that in absence of the officers of the
3
drawee bank informing the payee’s banker with reference to
dishonour of one of the cheques well within the time stipulated in
the Clearing House Rules which amounts to offence under
Sections 408 and 409 of IPC,without the presence of accused nos.
2 and 3 in the PCR, the charge-sheet could not have been filed
only against accused no.1. While quashing the criminal
proceedings the High Court has observed in para 8 as under:
“8. In the light of the complainant keeping quite in not
taking any action against incomplete charge sheet,
which is filed by the first respondent police in arraigning
only accused nos. 1 and 6 as accused in
CC.No.22308/2012, the prosecution against two of
them without the presence of other persons, who are
said to have involved in the same, would not be
complete charge sheet and the alleged offence would
not be complete against two of them without there
being the accomplice to the said act also being
arraigned as the accused. In that view of the matter,
this Court feel that prosecuting accused nos. 1 and 6 in
the instant case, in the absence of accused 2 and 3,
would be of no avail and would not take this matter to
the logical end. Hence, the same is required to be
quashed.”
4.1 The aforesaid cannot be a ground to quash the criminal
proceedings against the accused who was charge-sheeted by the
Investigating Officer after thorough investigation. Merely because
some other persons who might have committed the offences, but
were not arrayed as accused and were not charge-sheeted cannot
be a ground to quash the criminal proceedings against the
4
accused who is charge-sheeted after a thorough investigation.
During the trial if it is found that other accused persons who
committed the offence are not charge-sheeted, the Court may
array those personsas accused in exercise of powers under
Section 319 Cr.P.C. Merely because some of the persons who
might have committed the offences are not charge-sheeted, cannot
be a ground to quash the proceedings against the accused
charge-sheeted after having found prima facie case against him
after investigation. Nothing has been further observed by the High
Court on merits and/or on the allegations against the private
respondent herein – original accused no.1.
4.2 Under the circumstances the impugned judgment and order
passed by the High Court quashing the criminal proceedings
against the respondent no.2 herein – original accused no.1
deserves to be quashed and set aside.
5. In view of the above and for the reason stated above present
appeal succeeds. Impugned common judgment and order passed
by the High Court quashing the criminal proceedings against the
private respondent no.2 – original accused no.1 initiated pursuant
to private complaint filed in PCR 15250 of 2009 filed before
learned Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore which were
5
subsequently registered as FIR No.127 of 2010 on the file of
Chickpet Police Station and thereby registered as CC No.22308 of
2012 is hereby quashed and set aside. Present appeal is allowed
accordingly.
Now, on quashing and setting aside the impugned judgment
and order, the respondent no.2 herein – original accused no.1 be
further prosecuted for the offences for which he was charge-
sheeted and shall face trial which shall be dealt with and
considered in accordance with law and on its own merits.
……………………………….J. [M.R. SHAH]
NEW DELHI; ……………………………….J.
DECEMBER 9, 2021. [B.V. NAGARATHNA]
6
Comments