Search Judgments

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) – Section 482 and Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) – Sections 120-B, 420, 409, 467, 468, 471, Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 – Sections 13(1)(d), 13(2) – Quashing of charge-sheet under Section 482 CrPC – Settlement between bank and borrowers.

The case involves allegations of fraud, forgery, and criminal conspiracy against the accused, including the appellants (wives of the principal accused), related to loan facilities obtained from Indian Bank. The bank filed a complaint with the CBI, leading to a charge-sheet under various sections of the IPC and the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. A One Time Settlement (OTS) was reached between the bank and the borrowers, and the Debts Recovery Tribunal (DRT) disposed of the bank’s Original Application (OA) as settled.

(Procedural Irregularity in Charge Framing and De Novo Trial)

The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.), particularly Sections 215, 228, 464, and 482, regarding defects in charge framing and retrials - The case arises from a 2007 FIR for serious offences, including murder. Charges were nominally framed in 2009, but the formal order remained unsigned. Crucially, on 01.06.2009, it was recorded that charges were framed for all accused, leading to a trial that spanned over fourteen years with extensive prosecution evidence and cross-examination.

In 2024, the Trial Court, noting the unsigned nature of the original charge, framed a fresh formal charge.

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) – Section 498A; Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (DP Act) – Sections 3 & 4; Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) – Section 482 – This case involves an appeal against the High Court’s refusal to quash criminal proceedings initiated by the complainant-respondent No.2 against her husband, the accused-appellant, under Section 498A of the IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the DP Act. The complainant alleged dowry harassment and cruelty. The accused-appellant sought quashing of the FIR and complaint, arguing that the allegations were vague and unsubstantiated.

The Supreme Court examined the allegations and observed that they reflected the daily wear and tear of marriage rather than cruelty as defined under Section 498A.

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) – Section 528; The Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA) – Sections 44(1)(b), 45, 2(na), 65 – Petition was filed under Section 528 of the BNSS, seeking to quash an order taking cognizance of a supplementary complaint in C.C.No.9 of 2023 under the PMLA, arguing lack of sanction under Section 218 of BNSS (corresponding to Section 197 CrPC) and denial of hearing before cognizance under Section 223(1) of BNSS. The petitioner, an accused in the supplementary complaint, alleged irregularities in a recruitment process during his tenure as Deputy Manager in Metropolitan Transport Corporation, Chennai.

The prosecution argued that the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, applies due to Section 531(2)(a) of BNSS as the initial complaint was filed and cognizance was taken before the BNSS came into force. They further contended that the supplementary complaint isn’t a fresh proceeding but covered under Section 44 explanation (ii) of PMLA, and no sanction is needed under Section 197 of CrPC for acts of money laundering.

National Highways Act, 1956 – Section 3A and 3G; Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – Section 34 – This case involves appeals by a landowner seeking enhanced compensation for land acquired for the National Highways Department (NHAI) under the National Highways Act, 1956. The land was acquired in two phases. The initial compensation was fixed at Rs. 398 per sq.