Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

10 A draft charge-sheet was placed before the High Court for offences punishable under Sections 385, 389, 418, 477, 506 (2), 120B and 34 of the IPC. The draft charge-sheet also contains allegations against the eighth and ninth respondents. It is alleged that the eight respondent who is an advocate, helped the other accused in drafting false documents – the powers of attorney and MoUs. The ninth respondent is alleged to have entered into a settlement with the second respondent on 25 February 2015 against a payment of Rs 41,51,000. 11 The petitions for quashing the FIR were allowed by the High Court by its impugned judgement dated 8 January 2019 save in respect of the investigation for offences punishable under Section 385 of the IPC against the fourth and fifth respondents. The conclusion of the High Court is extracted below:

(ii) At the highest, the sixth to ninth respondents can be said to have financed the litigation as noted by the High Court in its impugned judgement;

(iii) There is no allegation of extortion against the answering respondents;

(iv) The powers of attorney and MoUs were executed before a notary. Thus, on the face of it, these documents cannot be termed as false or forged;

(v) The eighth respondent has been roped in only on account of having drafted the documents, which shows the frivolous nature of the allegations;

(viii) The FIR was registered with the Gandhigram police station and DCB police had no role to play in the investigation. Thus, the request for permission to file the charge-sheet by the DCB police station shows the influence of the appellant and the mala fide nature of the investigation conducted by DCB police station;

(ix) The draft charge-sheet was considered by the High Court in its impugned judgement, which is evident from the discussion of the offence of extortion, which bears no reference in the FIR. Further, the High Court has referred to statements and documents that were part of the draft charge-sheet;