Dismissed

Madhubal Vrajlal Seth v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Bombay HC13 Sept 2011REVN/180/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single judge dismissed the applicant's prayer for discharge in a bank fraud case, holding there was sufficient material to frame charges despite the forged nature of the submitted security documents, as detailed suspicion was not the standard for reversal.

What did the court decide?

The application seeking to quash the order rejecting the prayer for discharge was dismissed.

Madhubal Vrajlal Seth Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr. — Corruption | Bombay HC (2011)

cra180.11

rng

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
 CRI.REVISION APPLN NO.180 OF 2011

¶5

Mrs Madhubala V.Seth .. .. Applicant

¶6

vs

¶7

The State of Maharashtra & ors. Respondents

¶8

Ms.Rekha Singala for Applicant
Mr.S.A.Shaikh APP for State
Mr.Mandar Goswami for Respondent No.2

¶9

P.C.

¶10

1. Heard learned counsel for the Accused-

¶11

Applicant and learned APP representing the
parties.

¶12

2.The Applicant questions the propriety of

¶13

order below Exhibit 58 in CBI Special case
No.13 of 2009 dated 5.4.2011 rejecting the
Applicant's prayer for discharge.

¶14

cra180.11

¶15

¶16

3.The prosecution case indicate that in

¶17

the network and collusion with the Branch

¶18

Manager of Central Bank of India, financial
facilities were availed by the Applicant's
husband to which the Applicant introduced
herself as a guarantor and confirmed the

¶19

same. In order to secure the loan
facilities, the Applicant offered Life
Insurance coverage policies worth Rs.
65,00,000/- favouring her in her maiden name
as Indu Navinchandra Thakkar. The

¶20

investigation revealed that signatures on

¶21

the Policies and bank documents were
different. The handwriting did not match.
The Officers and husband of the Applicant
and several others were charge sheeted.

¶22

4.Learned counsel for the Applicant

¶23

submits that there are four cases. In one

¶24

of the case she was not supplied with the
charge sheet and the learned Judge desired

¶25

¶26

cra180.11

¶27

to frame charges. Having pointed that
charge sheet copy was belated supplied to
her. She says that handwriting expert
report generates her assertion as its hall
mark of her husband's connivance with bank
officersinprocuringtheloan.

¶28

Consequently, she is not responsible for
such fraud caused with the bank. There is
no single piece of evidence that the
Applicant has visited the bank at any time.

¶29

5.It is a matter of record that the

¶30

principal borrower is husband of the Accused
ApplicantandtheAccused-Applicant
submitted the LIC policy of Rs.65,00,000/-

¶31

as security which has been found to be
forged documents The allegation of her

¶32

husband's connivance with bank officials
cannot be gone into at this stage. It is a
matter of record again that relations
between the Applicant and her husband were

¶33

not severe nor were strained. It is not one
case against the Applicant but she has
facilitated identical arrangements at least
primarily in other 8 to 9 cases with
different banks with same modus operandi.

¶34

6.The learned Judge has rightly rejected
the Application as there was sufficient
material to frame charge and proceeded
against the Applicant. The suspicion in
respect of the documents would not weigh at

¶35

this stage when marshaling thereof is
inhibit.

¶36

Application lacks merit. Dismissed.

¶37

K.U.Chandiwal,J

Madhubal Vrajlal Seth v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Madhubal Vrajlal Seth v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ravindra M. Jatala Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Savitri @ Sumitra Siddappa Gouda Vs the Inspector of Police, Social Service Branch, Mumbai and Anr.

Savitri @ Sumitra Siddappa Gouda and Anr. Vs the Inspector of Police Social Service Branch and Anr.

Satish Bharama Chavan Vs the National Union of Seafarers of India and Ors.

Jayesh Shah Vs Chaitanya S. Bhatt and Anr.

Jiten P. Mody Vs Kapol Co. Operative Bank Ltd. and Anr.