Main Search Premium Members Advanced Search Disclaimer
Cites 3 docs
Section 471 in The Indian Penal Code
Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code
Section 468 in The Indian Penal Code
Citedby 21 docs - [View All]
Uniplas India Limited vs State And Anr. on 3 April, 2002
Sushil Suri vs Cbi & Anr. on 21 May, 2009
B Kashinath S/O Late B Raja Rao vs State Of Karnataka By C B I on 15 June, 2012
Essar Teleholdings Ltd vs Regr.Gen.Delhi High Court & Ors on 1 July, 2013
Etisalat Mauritius Ltd. vs Etisalat Db Telecom Pvt. Ltd. on 18 November, 2013

Application to MA in Law, Politics and Society in Ambedkar University, Delhi is open till 24 June. Apply here

Try out our Premium Member services: Virtual Legal Assistant, Query Alert Service and an ad-free experience. Free for one month and pay only if you like it.

Supreme Court of India
Inspector Of Police, Cbi vs B. Raja Gopal And Ors. on 21 January, 2002
Equivalent citations: 2002 (1) ALT Cri 355, JT 2002 (2) SC 331, (2002) 9 SCC 533
Bench: K Thomas, S Phukan

ORDER

1. Leave granted.

2. When a trial was in progress and reached almost the penultimate stage, the High Court stepped in and quashed the criminal proceedings. The aggrieved state has come up with this appeal. The case involved offences under Sections 420, 468 and 471 IPC etc., on the allegation that Canara Bank was defrauded. One of the premise adopted by the High Court was that there was a compromise between the bank officials and the accused and the disputed amount found due from the accused had been paid later. Even assuming that the said stand of the accused is correct, that was not enough for quashing the criminal proceedings, perhaps that would have been a ground for pleading mitigation at the final stage.

3. Mr. Natarajan, learned senior counsel contends that even apart from the payment made, the accused is able to establish that there was neither any intention to cheat nor was there any act of forgery. These are matters for the trial court to reach when the final conclusion is made. We do not express any opinion on these aspects on merits.

4. Nonetheless, we are of the view that the premature quashment made by the High Court is not in accordance with law. We, therefore, allow this appeal and set aside the impugned judgment.

5. We direct the trial court to proceed with the trial, and complete the examination of the remaining witnesses. The case shall be disposed of as expeditiously as possible.