Supreme Court - Daily Orders
M/S Comfort Polymers Rep By Its Managing ... vs V.P. Jinisha . on 6 January, 2015
Author: R. Banumathi
Bench: V. Gopala Gowda, R. Banumathi
1
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 51 OF 2015
(Arising out of S.L.P. (Crl.) No. 5282/2014)
M/s Comfort Polymers Rep. by its
Managing Partner ...Appellant
Versus
V.P. Jinisha & Ors. ...Respondents
ORDER
R. BANUMATHI, J.
Leave granted.
This appeal arises out of the Order dated 26.03.2014 in Crl. M.C. No. 5915 of 2013, passed by the High Court of Kerala, in and by which, the High Court quashed the FIR in Crime No. 301 of 2013 registered in Feroke Police Station, Kozhikode, the complaint and all other proceedings pursuant to the FIR.
Brief facts which led to the filing of this appeal are as under: The appellant-complainant is a firm engaged in the manufacture of footwear, established on 13.05.2009 under the Indian Partnership Act, 1932. The appellant-complainant is the managing partner of the firm and the respondents are three partners out of total six partners, namely C.P. Fasmia, Signature Not Verified Digitally signed byP. Khyrunnisa (Managing Partner), C.P. Abeena Raseem, V.P. Sushil Kumar Rakheja Date: 2015.01.10 11:12:34 IST Reason: Jinisha (Respondent No.1-accused), E.S. Ameena(Respondent No.2-accused) and K.P. Sabitha (Respondent No.3-accused). The 2 respondents expressed their desire to take retirement from the firm and do some business of their own. After discussions, a settlement was arrived at on 30.03.2011 among the partners of the firm in the presence of one Mr. K. Kunjalikutty as well as husbands of the partners of the firm and accused persons in furtherance of which, it was agreed that the respondents will sign and execute the retirement deed once they get the retirement money as per the settlement. Respondent No.2, who used to operate the current account of the appellant’s firm wrote a letter dated 6.02.2012 to the Managing Partner, authorizing her to operate the account of the firm. The respondents are said to have received Rs.68,37,261/- on various dates from February 2012 to May 2012 through cheques, in lieu of their retirement. Pursuant to the above, a draft retirement deed was prepared and entrusted with Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 herein, to sign and deliver the same to the appellant’s firm. Inspite of repeated reminders from the appellant’s firm, the retirement deed was neither executed nor handed over by the retiring partners to the firm. In the meanwhile, respondent No.2 wrote a letter to State Bank of India, to freeze the account of firm, and consequently, the firm’s account No.30875375108 was frozen. Being aggrieved by the act of the accused, the appellant filed a complaint before the Magistrate Court wherein investigation was ordered u/s 156(3) Cr.P.C. Pursuant to the direction, case was registered against the respondent Nos.1 3 to 3 u/s 120B, 406, 418, 420 IPC r/w Section 34 IPC in Crime No. 301/2013. After investigation, chargesheet was filed on 4.12.2013 against the accused-respondents Nos. 1 to 3 under Sections 406, 420 read with Section 34 I.P.C.
Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 filed a petition in Criminal M.C. No. 5915 of 2013 in the Kerala High Court praying for quashing of the complaint dated 11.7.2013 as well as the FIR lodged and further proceedings. High Court vide impugned order dated 26.03.2014 allowed the petition filed by the respondents and quashed the complaint, FIR and all other related proceedings. The High Court granted liberty to the petitioners-appellants herein to file the civil suit. This SLP is filed assailing the correctness of the above order of the High Court.
The learned counsel appearing for the appellant contended that the final report was already filed by the police after investigation and even though the same was brought to the notice of the court, the High Court faulted in exercising its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
We have heard the learned counsel for the respondents who supported the order of the High Court.
It is settled principle of law that while exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the court should be circumspect and judicious in exercising discretion and should take all relevant facts and circumstances into 4 consideration. The scope of exercise of power under Section 482 of the Code and the categories of cases where the High Court may exercise its powers under it relating to cognizable offences to prevent abuse of process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice were set out in detail by this Court in State of Haryana vs. Bhajanlal, 1992 SCC (Crl.) 426. Reference could also be made to Central Bureau of Investigation vs. Ravi Shankar Srivastava, IAS and Anr., (2006) 7 SCC 188 and Sanapareddy Maheedhar And…. vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, (2008) AIR SCW 11 and Rallis India Ltd. vs. Poduru Vidya Bhusan & Ors.,(2011) 5 S.C.R. 289.
As noticed earlier, after investigation chargesheet was filed against the respondent Nos.1 to 3 on 4.12.2013 under Sections 406, 420 read with Section 34 IPC. Even though filing of the final report was brought to the notice of the Court, the High Court proceeded to quash the FIR. After filing of the final report, the High Court was not right in quashing the FIR. In the case of Manjula Sinha vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors., (2008) 3 SCC (Crl.) 271: 2007 (12) SCC 503, this Court held that when chargesheet has been filed and charges have also been framed, the question of quashing the FIR does not arise. In our considered view, the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court exercising inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. cannot be sustained in law and the same is liable to be set aside.
5
In the result, the impugned order of the High Court is set aside and the appeal is allowed. The Trial Court/Judicial First Class Magistrate V, Kozhikode is directed to proceed with the matter in accordance with law. As requested by the learned counsel for the respondents, liberty is granted to the respondents to file a discharge petition and the same shall be heard and decided on its own merits.
…………………………………J. (V.Gopala Gowda) …………………………………J. (R. Banumathi) New Delhi;
January 6, 2015
6
ITEM NO.26 COURT NO.12 SECTION IIB
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No(s). 5282/2014
(Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 26/03/2014 in CRLMC No. 5915/2013 passed by the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam) M/S COMFORT POLYMERS REP BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER Petitioner(s) VERSUS V.P. JINISHA AND ORS. Respondent(s) (With interim relief and office report) Date : 06/01/2015 This petition was called on for hearing today. CORAM :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. GOPALA GOWDA HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE R. BANUMATHI For Petitioner(s) Mr. Basant R., Sr. Adv.
Mr. Raghenth Basant, Adv. Mr. Hardeep Singh, Adv.
Mr. Senthil Jagadeesan,Adv.
For Respondent(s) Mr. K. Rajeev,Adv. RR 1-3 RR-4 Ms. Bina Madhavan,Adv.
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Leave granted.
The appeal is allowed in terms of the signed order.
(S. K. RAKHEJA) (RENU DIWAN)
COURT MASTER COURT MASTER
(Signed order is placed on the file)