STATE OF MAHARASHTRA Vs. VIKRAM ANANTRAI DOSHI
LAWS(SC)-2014-9-62
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA (FROM: BOMBAY)
Decided on
September 19,2014
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
Appellant
VERSUS
Vikram Anantrai Doshi
Respondents
Referred Judgements :-
CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION SPE SIU X NEW DELHI VS. DUNCANS AGRO INDUSTRIES LTD [REFERRED TO]MADAN MOHAN ABBOT VS. STATE OF PUNJAB [REFERRED TO]
NIKHIL MERCHANT VS. CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION [REFERRED TO]
RUMI DHAR VS. STATE OF WEST BENGAL [REFERRED TO]
CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION VS. A RAVISHANKAR PRASAD [REFERRED TO]
CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION VS. JAGJIT SINGH [REFERRED TO]
CBI, ACB, MUMBAI VS. NARENDRA LAL JAIN [REFERRED TO]
GOPAKUMAR B. NAIR VS. C.B.I. [REFERRED TO]
Cited Judgements :-
JOGINDER SINGH LOGANI VS. STATE (CBI) [LAWS(DLH)-2015-9-536] [REFERRED]SEEMA SHARMA AND ANOTHER VS. STATE AND OTHERS [LAWS(J&K)-2017-8-51] [REFERRED TO]
SATPAL VS. STATE OF HARYANA [LAWS(P&H)-2022-2-16] [REFERRED TO]
MANJINDER SINGH VS. STATE OF PUNJAB [LAWS(P&H)-2022-4-133] [REFERRED TO]
BITTU GUJJAR VS. STATE OF PUNJAB [LAWS(P&H)-2022-7-52] [REFERRED TO]
HARPREET KAUR VS. STATE OF PUNJAB [LAWS(P&H)-2022-7-117] [REFERRED TO]
KAVINDRA KIYAWAT VS. STATE OF M.P. [LAWS(MPH)-2020-9-179] [REFERRED TO]
NITESH RAGHUVANSHI VS. STATE OF MP [LAWS(MPH)-2019-11-161] [REFERRED TO]
DEWANG @ DEVLO SURESHBHAI BRAHMBHATT VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [LAWS(GJH)-2020-7-6] [REFERRED TO]
JAGANNATH DEBTA VS. KAMALA BHUE [LAWS(ORI)-2018-5-85] [REFERRED TO]
DILAR SINGH AND ORS VS. STATE OF J & K AND ORS [LAWS(J&K)-2016-11-8] [REFERRED TO]
VIVEK KUMAR VS. STATE OF NCT/ DELHI [LAWS(DLH)-2021-1-87] [REFERRED TO]
DEEPAK KISHANBHAI JADAV VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [LAWS(GJH)-2021-4-14] [REFERRED TO]
JAGDISHBHAI BHOGILAL PANDYA VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [LAWS(GJH)-2023-2-2123] [REFERRED TO]
SUKHJINDER PAL SINGH VS. STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANOTHER [LAWS(P&H)-2018-1-360] [REFERRED TO]
HARPAL SINGH VS. STATE OF PUNJAB [LAWS(P&H)-2022-1-59] [REFERRED TO]
AJIT SINGH VS. STATE OF PUNJAB [LAWS(P&H)-2022-1-135] [REFERRED TO]
BALDEV SINGH VS. STATE OF PUNJAB [LAWS(P&H)-2022-2-32] [REFERRED TO]
HARPREET SINGH VS. STATE OF PUNJAB [LAWS(P&H)-2022-3-101] [REFERRED TO]
PARBATBHAI AAHIR @ PARBATBHAI BHIMSINHBHAI KARMUR VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [LAWS(SC)-2017-10-6] [REFERRED TO]
KAMALDEEP VS. STATE OF HARYANA [LAWS(P&H)-2022-9-99] [REFERRED TO]
ROHIT RANA VS. STATE OF HARYANA [LAWS(P&H)-2022-9-84] [REFERRED TO]
BHANU VS. STATE OF HARYANA [LAWS(P&H)-2022-9-85] [REFERRED TO]
DALJEET SINGH VS. STATE OF PUNJAB [LAWS(P&H)-2022-7-139] [REFERRED TO]
POONAM AND ORS. VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(BOM)-2014-11-198] [REFERRED TO]
RAJESH MUKHYAN VS. CBI [LAWS(HPH)-2024-1-3] [REFERRED TO]
AMAN LOHAN VS. STATE OF HARYANA [LAWS(P&H)-2022-3-93] [REFERRED TO]
KULWANT SINGH VS. STATE OF HARYANA [LAWS(P&H)-2021-8-79] [REFERRED TO]
S HARSHAVARDHAN REDDY VS. STATE [LAWS(MAD)-2016-9-126] [REFERRED]
STATE VS. PRAANSU KNITS AND ORS. [LAWS(MAD)-2015-10-206] [REFERRED TO]
JAHIR HUSSAIN VS. INPECTOR OF POLICE [LAWS(MAD)-2019-9-268] [REFERRED TO]
CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION VS. MANINDER SINGH [LAWS(SC)-2015-8-65] [REFERRED TO]
SUMITRA DEVI VS. STATE OF BIHAR [LAWS(PAT)-2019-6-29] [REFERRED TO]
DARSHAN KAUR VS. STATE OF PUNJAB [LAWS(P&H)-2022-9-45] [REFERRED TO]
GURJINDER SINGH VS. STATE OF PUNJAB [LAWS(P&H)-2022-3-138] [REFERRED TO]
MOHAN ALIAS MONI VS. STATE OF HARYANA [LAWS(P&H)-2022-3-106] [REFERRED TO]
BHUPENDER SINGH VS. STATE OF HARYANA [LAWS(P&H)-2023-5-179] [REFERRED TO]
ARUP KUMAR BHOWMICK VS. CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION, ANTI CORRUPTION BRANCH [LAWS(CAL)-2023-8-208] [REFERRED TO]
GURRAM SUJATHA VS. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH [LAWS(APH)-2022-12-36] [REFERRED TO]
STATE VS. R. VASANTHI STANLEY AND ORS. [LAWS(SC)-2015-9-48] [REFERRED TO]
DAXABEN VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [LAWS(SC)-2022-7-110] [REFERRED TO]
CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION VS. HARI SINGH RANKA [LAWS(SC)-2017-7-133] [REFERRED TO]
A. P. SUBRAMANI VS. STATE [LAWS(MAD)-2021-7-110] [REFERRED TO]
AVVA SITA RAM RAO ALIAS SEETHA RAM & OTHERS VS. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH & ANOTHER [LAWS(APH)-2017-10-81] [REFERRED TO]
PUJA QUENCH DISTRIBUTORS PVT LTD AND 3 OTHERS VS. STATE OF U P AND 3 OTHERS [LAWS(ALL)-2019-5-105] [REFERRED TO]
VASUMATHI MARIMUTHU VS. STATE [LAWS(MAD)-2016-8-68] [REFERRED TO]
DILBAGH SINGH VS. STATE OF PUNJAB [LAWS(P&H)-2022-3-139] [REFERRED TO]
BABU KHAN VS. STATE [LAWS(DLH)-2019-9-51] [REFERRED TO]
PAULOSE ABRAHAM VS. STATE OF KERALA [LAWS(KER)-2019-10-5] [REFERRED TO]
NINGEGOWDA VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA [LAWS(KAR)-2020-1-192] [REFERRED TO]
VELPANDI VS. STATE [LAWS(MAD)-2019-11-694] [REFERRED TO]
ARYAN VS. STATE OF PUNJAB [LAWS(P&H)-2022-9-44] [REFERRED TO]
DARSHAN SINGH VS. STATE OF PUNJAB [LAWS(P&H)-2022-7-79] [REFERRED TO]
RAJENDRA KUMAR SHARMA VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN THROUGH PP [LAWS(RAJ)-2018-8-269] [REFERRED TO]
STATE VS. INTEK ENG. & SER. P. LTD. AND ORS. [LAWS(SC)-2016-2-147] [REFERRED TO]
P. DHARAMARAJ VS. SHANMUGAM [LAWS(SC)-2022-9-30] [REFERRED TO]
RAMANATHAN (A) THOOPAKKI RAMANATHAN VS. STATE [LAWS(MAD)-2022-9-16] [REFERRED TO]
VIKRAMBHAI PRABHUDAS DUVANI VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [LAWS(GJH)-2023-1-1840] [REFERRED TO]
HUNNY VS. STATE OF HARYANA [LAWS(P&H)-2022-3-141] [REFERRED TO]
HARDEEP SINGH VS. STATE OF PUNJAB [LAWS(P&H)-2022-7-118] [REFERRED TO]
SHASHI SHEKHAR VS. STATE OF HARYANA [LAWS(P&H)-2022-7-116] [REFERRED TO]
RAVINDER SINGH VS. STATE OF PUNJAB [LAWS(P&H)-2022-4-134] [REFERRED TO]
SUMIT DESWAL VS. STATE OF PUNJAB [LAWS(P&H)-2022-9-46] [REFERRED TO]
VIKAS SHARMA VS. MONICA & ORS. [LAWS(DLH)-2016-7-540] [REFERRED TO]
AKHTAR VS. GOVERNMENT OF NCT, DELHI [LAWS(DLH)-2021-2-27] [REFERRED TO]
YOGESH VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(BOM)-2019-6-249] [REFERRED TO]
LAKSHMANAN VS. INSPECTOR OF POLICE [LAWS(MAD)-2019-3-318] [REFERRED TO]
H. KRISHNAMURTHY VS. INSPECTOR OF POLICE [LAWS(MAD)-2021-11-144] [REFERRED TO]
NARINDER SINGH VS. STATE OF PUNJAB [LAWS(P&H)-2022-2-3] [REFERRED TO]
MANPREET SINGH VS. STATE OF PUNJAB [LAWS(P&H)-2022-2-14] [REFERRED TO]
ANKIT BANSAL VS. STATE OF PUNJAB [LAWS(P&H)-2022-3-140] [REFERRED TO]
GURDAWAR SINGH VS. STATE OF PUNJAB [LAWS(P&H)-2022-9-86] [REFERRED TO]
NARINDER SINGH VS. STATE OF PUNJAB [LAWS(P&H)-2022-7-119] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH VS. RAVINDRA SINGH CHAUHAN [LAWS(SC)-2017-7-115] [REFERRED TO]
ANIL KUMAR AND ANOTHER VS. STATE OF MP AND ANOTHER [LAWS(MPH)-2018-3-281] [REFERRED TO]
MATHEWS MANUAL VS. STATE OF KERALA [LAWS(KER)-2021-11-27] [REFERRED TO]
CHIRAG SUNDARLAL GUPTA VS. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS. [LAWS(BOM)-2020-3-554] [REFERRED TO]
PUNEET CHOPRA AND OTHERS VS. STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANOTHER [LAWS(P&H)-2018-3-282] [REFERRED TO]
PRAVEEN KUMAR VS. STATE OF BIHAR [LAWS(PAT)-2017-4-71] [REFERRED TO]
ABHISHEK SINGH VS. STATE OF PUNJAB [LAWS(P&H)-2022-4-144] [REFERRED TO]
KALPESHBHAI DINESHCHANDRA JARIWALA VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [LAWS(GJH)-2018-5-108] [REFERRED TO]
HARISHBHAI RAMANBHAI RATHOD VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [LAWS(GJH)-2017-7-196] [REFERRED TO]
MADHU GUPTA VS. M/S. SATYAM FINLEASE PVT. LTD. [LAWS(DLH)-2016-3-313] [REFERRED TO]
JUDGEMENT
-
(1.)The centripodal issue that strikingly emerges, commanding the judicial conscience to ponder and cogitate with reasonable yard-stick of precision, for consideration how far a superior court should proceed to analyse the factual score in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction bestowed upon it under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure or under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to quash the criminal proceeding solely on the ground that the parties have entered into a settlement and, therefore, the continuance of the criminal proceeding would be an exercise in futility, or the substantial cause of justice warrants such quashment to make the parties free from unnecessary litigation with the assumed motto of not loading the system with unfruitful prosecution, of course with certain riders, one of which, as regards the cases pertaining to commercial litigations, appreciation of predominant nature of civil propensity involved in the lis or social impact in the backdrop of the facts of the case. The primary question that we have posed has a substantial supplementary issue; i.e. should the courts totally remain oblivious to the prism of fiscal purity and wholly brush aside the modus operandi maladroitly adopted, as alleged by the prosecution, on the part of industrial entrepreneurs or the borrowers on the foundation that money has been paid back to the public financial institutions.
We think not, especially regard being had to the obtaining factual matrix in the case at hand.
(2.)Presently to the factual exposition. On the basis of a written complaint of chief vigilance officer, Bank of Baroda a case was registered against the respondents on 6.1.2006 and after completion of investigation a report was filed before the Special Court, CBI cases, Mumbai with a prayer to forward the chargesheet to the learned Magistrate who was competent to take cognizance of the offences as the involvement of R.C. Sharma, the concerned Bank Officer, a public servant, in the crime in question, could not be prima facie found during the investigation. As the facts would undrape, on 3.2.2006 upon perusal of the chargesheet the learned Special Judge, CBI cases directed to place the chargesheet before the appropriate court and accordingly a fresh chargesheet was filed before the ACMM, 19th Court, Esplanade, Mumbai vide criminal case no. 82/CPW/2006 for commission of offences punishable under Section 120-B, Section 406, 20, 467, 468 and 471 IPC against the accused persons.
(3.)On a perusal of the charge sheet, it is evincible that there are allegations to the effect that Vikram Doshi, A 1, Vineet Doshi, A 2, and Sanjay J. Shah, A 3, made number of applications to the Bank of Baroda for sanction of various credit facilities, stating that they wanted to induct the said bank as a new consortium member to replace the existing members, namely, the UTI Bank and the Federal Bank. They requested the said Bank to sanction 15% of the total Working Capital facility sanctioned by the consortium of Banks, so that, that much amount could be transferred to the UTI bank and Federal Bank to take over the existing liabilities with the said two banks. It was revealed during investigation that the account of the company, with the consortium of banks as well as the finance institutions, was highly irregular and in the said condition the accused persons approached the Bank for sanction of loan. In the application to the Bank, the accused persons concealed the fact relating to the dues outstanding against them. Thereafter, when asked for the outstanding position with the existing consortium members, the accused persons willfully and with the criminal intent to mislead the Bank of Baroda, furnished wrong statements about the outstanding position by giving considerably lesser amount as outstanding than the actual.
We think not, especially regard being had to the obtaining factual matrix in the case at hand.
(2.)Presently to the factual exposition. On the basis of a written complaint of chief vigilance officer, Bank of Baroda a case was registered against the respondents on 6.1.2006 and after completion of investigation a report was filed before the Special Court, CBI cases, Mumbai with a prayer to forward the chargesheet to the learned Magistrate who was competent to take cognizance of the offences as the involvement of R.C. Sharma, the concerned Bank Officer, a public servant, in the crime in question, could not be prima facie found during the investigation. As the facts would undrape, on 3.2.2006 upon perusal of the chargesheet the learned Special Judge, CBI cases directed to place the chargesheet before the appropriate court and accordingly a fresh chargesheet was filed before the ACMM, 19th Court, Esplanade, Mumbai vide criminal case no. 82/CPW/2006 for commission of offences punishable under Section 120-B, Section 406, 20, 467, 468 and 471 IPC against the accused persons.
(3.)On a perusal of the charge sheet, it is evincible that there are allegations to the effect that Vikram Doshi, A 1, Vineet Doshi, A 2, and Sanjay J. Shah, A 3, made number of applications to the Bank of Baroda for sanction of various credit facilities, stating that they wanted to induct the said bank as a new consortium member to replace the existing members, namely, the UTI Bank and the Federal Bank. They requested the said Bank to sanction 15% of the total Working Capital facility sanctioned by the consortium of Banks, so that, that much amount could be transferred to the UTI bank and Federal Bank to take over the existing liabilities with the said two banks. It was revealed during investigation that the account of the company, with the consortium of banks as well as the finance institutions, was highly irregular and in the said condition the accused persons approached the Bank for sanction of loan. In the application to the Bank, the accused persons concealed the fact relating to the dues outstanding against them. Thereafter, when asked for the outstanding position with the existing consortium members, the accused persons willfully and with the criminal intent to mislead the Bank of Baroda, furnished wrong statements about the outstanding position by giving considerably lesser amount as outstanding than the actual.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.