Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

down  in  Narinder Singh's  case  supra  for   accepting   the settlement   and   quashing   the   proceedings.   It   would   be profitable   to   reproduce   para   No.   13   to   15   of   the   judgment herein:

"13. The same principle was followed in  Central Bureau of Investigation   v.   Maninder   Singh  (2016)1   SCC   389   by   a bench of two learned Judges of this Court. In that case, the High Court had, in the exercise of its inherent power under Section 482 quashed proceedings under Sections 420, 467, 468 and  471  read with   Section  120­B  of the Penal  Code.  While allowing   the   appeal   filed   by   the   Central   Bureau   of Investigation   Mr   Justice   Dipak   Misra   (as   the   learned   Chief Justice then was) observed that the case involved allegations of forgery of documents to embezzle the funds of the bank. In such   a   situation,   the  fact   that   the   dispute  had   been   settled with the bank would not justify a recourse to the power under Section 482:

submission, this Court held that:

"... Lack of awareness, knowledge or intent is neither to be   considered   nor   accepted   in   economic   offences.   The submission assiduously presented on gender leaves us unimpressed. An offence under the criminal law is an offence and it does not depend upon the gender of an accused. True it is, there are certain provisions in Code of Criminal Procedure relating to exercise of jurisdiction Under   Section   437,   etc.   therein   but   that   altogether pertains   to a   different   sphere.  A   person   committing   a murder   or   getting   involved   in   a   financial   scam   or forgery   of   documents,   cannot   claim   discharge   or r acquittal on the ground of her gender as that is neither constitutionally   nor   statutorily   a   valid   argument.   The offence is gender neutral in this case. We say no more on this score..."