1) Nagawwa v. Veeranna Shivalingappa Konjalgi [1976 (3) SCC 736]
2) State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal [1992 Supp. (1) SCC 335]
3) Rupan Deol Bajaj v. Kanwar Pal 8 of 14 Singh Gill [1995 (6) SCC 194]
4) Pratibha Rani v. Suraj Kumar [1985 (2) SCC 370]
5) Indian Oil Corpn. v. NEPC India Ltd. [2006 (6) SCC 736], at page 747
6) Madhavrao Jiwajirao Scindia v. Sambhajirao Chandrojirao Angre
7) State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal
8) Rupan Deol Bajaj v. Kanwar Pal Singh Gill
9) Central Bureau of Investigation v. Duncans Agro Industries Ltd.
10) State of Bihar v. Rajendra Agrawalla
11) Rajesh Bajaj v. State NCT of Delhi
12) Medchl Chemicals & Pharma (P) Ltd. v. Biological E. Ltd.
13) Hridaya Ranjan Prasad Verma v. State of Bihar
14) M. Krishnan v. Vijay Singh
15) Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. v. Mohd. Sharaful Haque.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL No..............OF 2009
(Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 6482 of 2006)
Ravindra Kumar Madhanlal Goenka & Anr. .....Appellants
Versus
M/s. Rugmini Ram Raghav Spinners P.Ltd. .....Respondent
14. In the abovementioned case, this Court has taken the view that when the complaint does not disclose any criminal offence, the proceeding is liable to be quashed under Section 482 CrPC. However, the same is not the situation in the present case. There is no denial of the fact that though 900 bales of cotton was already dispatched, but 100 bales of cotton are yet to be dispatched. The defence raised by the appellant hereinabove can be urged and proved only during the course of trial. While entertaining a petition under Section 482 CrPC, the materials furnished by the defence cannot be looked into and the defence materials can be entertained only at the time of trial. It is well settled position of law that when there are prima facie materials available, a petition for quashing the criminal proceedings cannot be entertained. The investigating agency should have had the freedom to go into the whole gamut of the allegations and to reach a conclusion of its own. Pre-emption of such investigation would be justified only in very extreme cases.
15.While considering the facts of the present case, we are of the considered opinion that the present case is not one of those extreme cases where criminal prosecution can be quashed by the court at the very threshold. A defence case is pleaded but such defence is required to be considered at a later stage and not at this stage. The appellants would have ample opportunity to raise all the issues urged in this appeal at an appropriate later stage, where such pleas would be and could be properly analysed and scrutinized.
16.In view of the aforesaid position, we decline to interfere with the criminal proceeding at this stage. The appeal is consequently dismissed.
2) State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal [1992 Supp. (1) SCC 335]
3) Rupan Deol Bajaj v. Kanwar Pal 8 of 14 Singh Gill [1995 (6) SCC 194]
4) Pratibha Rani v. Suraj Kumar [1985 (2) SCC 370]
5) Indian Oil Corpn. v. NEPC India Ltd. [2006 (6) SCC 736], at page 747
6) Madhavrao Jiwajirao Scindia v. Sambhajirao Chandrojirao Angre
7) State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal
8) Rupan Deol Bajaj v. Kanwar Pal Singh Gill
9) Central Bureau of Investigation v. Duncans Agro Industries Ltd.
10) State of Bihar v. Rajendra Agrawalla
11) Rajesh Bajaj v. State NCT of Delhi
12) Medchl Chemicals & Pharma (P) Ltd. v. Biological E. Ltd.
13) Hridaya Ranjan Prasad Verma v. State of Bihar
14) M. Krishnan v. Vijay Singh
15) Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. v. Mohd. Sharaful Haque.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL No..............OF 2009
(Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 6482 of 2006)
Ravindra Kumar Madhanlal Goenka & Anr. .....Appellants
Versus
M/s. Rugmini Ram Raghav Spinners P.Ltd. .....Respondent
14. In the abovementioned case, this Court has taken the view that when the complaint does not disclose any criminal offence, the proceeding is liable to be quashed under Section 482 CrPC. However, the same is not the situation in the present case. There is no denial of the fact that though 900 bales of cotton was already dispatched, but 100 bales of cotton are yet to be dispatched. The defence raised by the appellant hereinabove can be urged and proved only during the course of trial. While entertaining a petition under Section 482 CrPC, the materials furnished by the defence cannot be looked into and the defence materials can be entertained only at the time of trial. It is well settled position of law that when there are prima facie materials available, a petition for quashing the criminal proceedings cannot be entertained. The investigating agency should have had the freedom to go into the whole gamut of the allegations and to reach a conclusion of its own. Pre-emption of such investigation would be justified only in very extreme cases.
15.While considering the facts of the present case, we are of the considered opinion that the present case is not one of those extreme cases where criminal prosecution can be quashed by the court at the very threshold. A defence case is pleaded but such defence is required to be considered at a later stage and not at this stage. The appellants would have ample opportunity to raise all the issues urged in this appeal at an appropriate later stage, where such pleas would be and could be properly analysed and scrutinized.
16.In view of the aforesaid position, we decline to interfere with the criminal proceeding at this stage. The appeal is consequently dismissed.
Comments
Post a Comment