Facts of the case
- Respondent No.1, Rajeev Sawhney filed Criminal Complaint before Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate alleging commission of offences punishable under Sections 417, 420, 465, 467, 468, 471 read with Section 120B of IPC by the petitioners.
- The complaint made specific allegations that petitioners had entered into a conspiracy to defraud him and for that purpose Shri Pawan Kumar, arrayed as accused No.4 in the complaint, had played an active role apart from fabricating a Board resolution when no such resolution had, in fact, been passed.
- On receipt of the complaint the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate recorded prima facie satisfaction about the commission of offences punishable under Sections 417, 420, 465, 467, 468, 471, read with Section 120B of IPC, took cognizance and directed issuance of process against the accused persons.
- Aggrieved by the said order, Revision Petitions No.449, 460, 853 of 2007 were filed by the accused persons before the Additional Sessions Judge, , challenging the order taking cognizance and the maintainability of the complaint on several grounds.
- The Additional Sessions Judge came to the conclusion that although the allegations regarding fabrication of a resolution, taken at their face value, made out a prima facie case of fraud against the accused persons yet the minutes of a subsequent meeting , ratified the resolution allegedly passed.
- The Court on that premise concluded that no fraud or cheating was made out against the accused persons.
- The Court also found fault with the complainant suppressing the fact of a complaint having been filed before the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Bangalore and the alleged non-observance of the provisions of Section 202 of the Cr.P.C.
- The above order was then challenged by the complainant, Shri Rajeev Sawhney before the High Court of Bombay.
- The High Court came to the conclusion that the Additional Sessions Judge had fallen in error on all three counts. The High Court noticed that the complaint filed before the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Bangalore had been quashed by the Karnataka High Court on account of a more comprehensive complaint having been filed before the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Mumbai. Consequently, on the date the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate took cognizance of the offence alleged against the accused persons there was no complaint other than the one pending before the said Court. The complainant could not, therefore, be accused of having suppressed any material information from the trial Court to call for any interference by the Sessions Court on that count.
- As regards the alleged non-observance of the provisions of Section 202 Cr.P.C. the High Court came to the conclusion that the provision of Section 202 Cr.P.C. had been complied with by the Magistrate while taking cognizance and issuing process.
- On the question of ratification of the resolution ,the High Court held that the Sessions Judge was not justified in entertaining a photocopy of the document relied upon by the accused at the revisional stage, placing implicit reliance upon the same and interfering with the on-going proceedings before the Magistrate.
- Special Leave Petition was filed before the Supreme Court.
Judgment
The Hon’ble Supreme Court held that, “It is interesting to note that even in the present SLPs the petitioner has filed an unsigned copy of the alleged minutes of the meeting. We do not think that we can possibly look into that document without proper proof and without verification of its genuineness. There was and is no clear and unequivocal admission on the record, at least none was brought to our notice, regarding the genuineness of the document or its probative value. The complainant-respondent in this petition was also not willing to concede that the document relied upon could possibly result in the ratification of an act which was non est being a mere forgery. At any rate the document could not be said to be of unimpeachable character nor was there any judicial compulsion much less an exceptional or formidable one to allow its production in revisional proceedings or to accept it as legally admissible evidence for determining the correctness of the order passed by the trial Court. That apart whether or not document could possibly have the effect of ratifying the resolution was also a matter that could not be dealt with summarily, especially when the former did not even make a reference to the latter. The alternative contention urged by learned counsel for the petitioners that there was suppression of information by the complainant as regards filing of a previous complaint before the Magistrate at Bangalore is also without any substance. The fact that the complaint previously filed had been quashed by the High Court on account of filing of a comprehensive complaint out of which these proceedings arise is, in our opinion, a complete answer to the charge of suppression. As on the date the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Mumbai, took cognizance of the offences in the complaint filed before him no other complaint was pending in any other Court, the complaint before the Magistrate at Bangalore having had been quashed without a trial on merits. Mere filing of a previous complaint could not in the above circumstances be a bar to the filing of another complaint or for proceedings based on such complaint being taken to their logical conclusion. So also the High Court was, in our opinion, correct in holding that there was no violation of the provision of Section 202 Cr.P.C. to warrant interference in exercise of revisional powers by the Sessions Judge. In the result, we see no reason to interfere with the order passed by the High Court in exercise of our jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution of India.”
The Special Leave Petitions are accordingly dismissed.
BY: ANKIT RAJPUT