The Allahabad High Court dismissed an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking to quash summons and a charge sheet in a corruption case involving alleged forgery and cheating by an approved bank valuer. The court held that allegations prima facie made out a case for trial.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC-LKO:67773
Court No. - 16
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 2765 of 2010
Applicant :- Vineet Ranjan Srivastava Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. C.B.I. Acb Lucknow Counsel for Applicant :- Salil Kr. Srivastava,Manoj Kumar Misra Counsel for Opposite Party :- Bireshwar Nath,Anurag Kumar Singh
Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi,J.
1 of 6
2 of 6
by the bank officials, who failed to obtain Income Tax returns, Sale Tax returns and audited balance sheet of the firm before sanctioning CCH limit. The CCH limit was sanctioned ignoring the bank norms and actual status of the firm. He has submitted that the applicant had no role to play in verification of the aforesaid documents or in sanction of the CCH limit and the housing loans.
“ 102 . In the backdrop of the interpretation of the various relevant provisions of the Code under Chapter XIV and of the principles of law enunciated by this Court in a series of decisions relating to the exercise of the extraordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code which we have extracted and reproduced above, we give the following categories of cases by way of illustration wherein such power could be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently channelised and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised.
(1) Where the allegations made in the first information report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused.
(2) Where the allegations in the first information report and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156(1)
3 of 6
of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code.
(3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused.
(4) Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code.
(5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused.
(6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party.
(7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge.
103. We also give a note of caution to the effect that the power of quashing a criminal proceeding should be exercised very sparingly and with circumspection and that too in the rarest of rare cases; that the court will not be justified in embarking upon an enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the FIR or the complaint and that the extraordinary or inherent powers do not confer an arbitrary jurisdiction on the court to act according to its whim or caprice.”
11. In K. Ramakrishna v. State of Bihar, (2000) 8 SCC 547 , it was held that: -
“ 4. The trial court under Section 239 and the High Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is not called upon to embark upon an inquiry as to whether evidence in question is reliable or not or evidence relied upon is sufficient to proceed further or not. However, if upon the admitted facts and the documents relied upon by the complainant or the prosecution and without weighing or sifting of evidence, no case is made out, the criminal proceedings instituted against the accused are required to be dropped or quashed…”
12. In Soma Chakravarty v. State, (2007) 5 SCC 403 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that: -
“ if on the basis of material on record the court could form an opinion that the accused might have committed offence it can frame the charge, though for conviction the conclusion is required to be proved beyond reasonable doubt that the accused has committed the offence. At the time of framing
4 of 6
of the charges the probative value of the material on record cannot be gone into, and the material brought on record by the prosecution has to be accepted as true at that stage. Before framing a charge the court must apply its judicial mind on the material placed on record and must be satisfied that the commitment of offence by the accused was possible. Whether, in fact, the accused committed the offence, can only be decided in the trial.”
13. In Akbar Hussain versus State of J&K, (2018) 16 SCC 85 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that: -
“ 5. ... At the time of framing the charge, the trial court has to consider the material before it by the investigating officer and form a prima facie opinion thereupon as to whether it is a fit case for framing of charge under a particular provision. The standard of proof test, which is to be applied at the final stage, in order to find out as to whether the accused is guilty or not on the basis of actual evidence produced is not to be applied at the stage of framing of the charge. Charge can be framed even when there is a strong suspicion founded upon materials before the Court, which leads the court to form a presumptive opinion as to existence of the factual ingredient constituting the offence alleged.”
“exercise of powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the proceedings is an exception and not a rule. It is further observed that inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. though wide is to be exercised sparingly, carefully and with caution, only when such exercise is justified by tests specifically laid down in the section itself. It is further observed that appreciation of evidence is not permissible at the stage of quashing of proceedings in exercise of powers under Section 482 CrPC.”
5 of 6
were sanctioned to M/s Sagar Trades and New Shukla Medical Stores after taking into consideration the valuation reports submitted by the applicant, which were found to be false. Some other documents which were also taken into consideration by the bank, viz. income tax returns, sales tax returns and the projected sales etc. were also found to be false, but it will not make any difference on the conduct of the applicant in submitting false valuation reports of the property mortgaged for obtaining CCH limits, which valuation reports were found to be false and properties were found to be grossly overvalued by the applicant. The valuation reports had also formed the basis for sanction of the CCH limits, apart from certain other documents.
6 of 6
Digitally signed by :- PRADEEP SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. warrant quashing of criminal proceedings in an alleged corruption case.
Whether the allegations in the FIR prima facie constitute an offence making out a case for trial.
Whether the High Court can conduct a mini-trial or appreciate evidence while considering an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
State of Haryana v. Bhajan LalExplained¶18
State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 · Who else cites this
K. Ramakrishna v. State of BiharExplained¶30
K. Ramakrishna v. State of Bihar, (2000) 8 SCC 547 · Who else cites this
Soma Chakravarty v. StateExplained¶32
Soma Chakravarty v. State, (2007) 5 SCC 403 · Who else cites this
Akbar Hussain versus State of J&KExplained¶36
Akbar Hussain versus State of J&K, (2018) 16 SCC 85 · Who else cites this
State of Uttar Pradesh and Another Versus Akhil Sharda and OthersExplained¶38
State of Uttar Pradesh and Another Versus Akhil Sharda and Others, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 820 · Who else cites this
Kaptan Singh v. State of U.P.Explained¶39
Kaptan Singh v. State of U.P., (2021) 9 SCC 35 · Who else cites this
3 provisions across 3 enactments
Vineet Ranjan Srivastava
Subhash Vidyarthi
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
