Case title: A.M. Mohan V. The State Represented By SHO And Another
Case no.: Criminal Appeal No. of 2024
Decided on: 20.03.2024
Quorum: Hon’ble Justice B.R. Gavai, Hon’ble Justice Rajesh Bindal, and Hon’ble Justice Sandeep Mehta.
FACTS OF THE CASE:
The case involves a situation where accused No. 2 sought financial assistance from the complainant to settle a loan, which led to the involvement of accused No. 1 in a business venture. The complainant agreed to lend Rs.1,60,00,000 to accused No. 1 with specific conditions regarding repayment and profit sharing. Subsequently, the complainant transferred Rs.20,00,000 online to the appellant-accused No. 3. The appellant then transferred land to accused No. 1, and it was noted that the appellant was not directly implicated in any further transactions. The charge-sheet related to the FIR was filed on 4th January 2023.
LEGAL PROVISIONS:
The legal provisions involved in the case include Section 415 and Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). Section 415 pertains to the offense of cheating, where a person fraudulently or dishonestly induces another to deliver property or engage in certain actions. Section 420 deals with cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property, punishable under the IPC. Additionally, the document mentions the application of Section 34 of the IPC, which deals with acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention.
APPELLANTS CONTENTION:
The appellant’s argument, presented by learned Senior Counsel Shri Nagamuthu, asserts that even when considering the allegations in the FIR at face value, there is no basis for charging the appellant under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The appellant contends that the charge-sheet does not contain any elements that would attract Section 420 of the IPC. Additionally, it is argued that there was no direct transaction between the appellant and the complainant, with the appellant’s involvement limited to executing a sale deed at the behest of Accused No. 1.
RESPONDENTS CONTENTION:
The respondents contended that since the charge-sheet had been filed, the present appeal should be dismissed. They argued that once a charge-sheet is filed, a petition for quashing the FIR is not tenable. The respondents relied on the position taken by the court in the case of Joseph Salvaraj A. v. State of Gujarat to support their contention regarding the dismissal of the appeal after the charge-sheet filing.
COURT ANALYSIS AND JUDGMENT:
The Supreme Court meticulously examined the arguments put forth by both the appellant and the respondents. The court delved into the legal intricacies surrounding the invocation of Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) to quash complaints and criminal proceedings, emphasizing the pivotal role of this provision in preventing the misuse of legal processes and ensuring the fair administration of justice.
Upon careful consideration, the court found substance in the appellant’s contention that the charge-sheet failed to establish a prima facie case under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) against the appellant. The court, therefore, accorded weight to the absence of concrete evidence implicating the appellant in the alleged fraudulent activities outlined in the charge-sheet. Consequently, the court rendered a verdict in favor of the appellant, thereby allowing the appeal. The court proceeded to quash the order issued by the High Court and annulled the First Information Report (FIR) and charge-sheet that had been lodged against the appellant. By taking this decisive action, the court effectively put an end to the legal proceedings initiated against the appellant in this matter, thereby bringing closure to the contentious issue at hand.
“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”
Judgement reviewed by – Ayush Shrivastava
