It is truly worth mentioning right at the start that in a very significant development, the Apex Court has commendably in a recent, refreshing, robust and rational judgment titled M/S Suvarna Cooperative Bank Ltd. V. State of Karnataka and Another in Criminal Appeal Nos. 1535 of 2021 delivered as recently as on December 9, 2021 has held quite clearly, categorically and convincingly that chargesheet filed against accused persons after a thorough investigation cannot be quashed merely on the ground that other persons who might have committed the offence have not been arrayed as accused or charge-sheeted. It was rightly held by the Apex Court that, “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 accused who is charge-sheeted after a thorough investigation.” All the courts must always doggedly abide by what the Apex Court Division Bench has laid down so clearly, composedly and convincingly in this leading case. It must be mentioned here that a Division Bench of Justice MR Shah and Justice BV Nagarathna said that during the trial, if it is found that other accused persons who committed the offence are not charge-sheeted, the Court may array those persons as accused in exercise of powers under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC).
To start with, this brief, brilliant and balanced judgment sets the ball rolling by first and foremost observing in para 1 that, “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, 408, 409, 420 and 149 of IPC, the original complainant has preferred the present appeal.”
To put things in perspective, the Bench then puts forth in para 2 that, “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.”
As it turned out, the Bench then enunciates in para 2.1 that, “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. By observing so the High Court has quashed the criminal proceedings against the original accused no.1.”
Needless to state, the Bench then observes in para 2.2 that, “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.”
Be it noted, the Bench then specifies in para 3 that, “We have heard Shri Amith Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Shri H.V. Nagaraja Rao, learned counsel appearing for the respondent.”
Quite significantly, the Bench then hastens to add in para 4 that, “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 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.””
Most significantly, the Bench then ruled in para 4.1 what forms the real cornerstone of this notable judgment wherein it is held that, “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 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 persons as 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.”
As a corollary, the Bench then indubitably is absolutely right in holding in para 4.2 that, “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.”
Finally and on a parting note, the Bench then holds succinctly in para 5 that, “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 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 chargesheeted and shall face trial which shall be dealt with and considered in accordance with law and on its own merits.”
All said and done, this learned, laudable, landmark and latest judgment delivered so lucidly by a Division Bench of Apex Court comprising of Justice MR Shah and Justice BV Nagarathna thus makes it crystal clear that case against chargesheeted accused cannot be quashed merely because other suspects are not chargesheeted. At the risk of repetition, it must be said that the Apex Court left not even an iota of doubt to make it absolutely clear that, “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 accused who is charge-sheeted after a thorough investigation.” There can be no gainsaying the irrefutable fact that all the Judges must always not just bear this in mind what the Apex Court in this leading case has held so rightly, robustly and rationally but also implement it in letter and spirit in similar such cases! Of course, there can be just no denying or disputing it!
Sanjeev Sirohi
