Q. What are the equivalent citations for Inspector of Police, CBI vs B. Raja Gopal & Others ?

The equivalence citation are2002 (2) ACR 1273 (SC) ; 2002 (1) ALT (CRL) 355 ; (2002) 9 SCC 533 ; JT 2002 (2) SC 331 ; LQ/SC/2002/88 ;

Inspector Of Police, CBI Vs. B. Raja Gopal & Others On 21 January, 2002

Q: Q. What was the bench assigned for the case Inspector of Police, CBI vs B. Raja Gopal & Others?

HONBLE MR. JUSTICE K.T. THOMAS, HONBLE MR. JUSTICE S.N. PHUKAN

Open iDraf

Inspector Of Police, Cbi v. B. Raja Gopal & Others

Inspector Of Police, Cbi
v.
B. Raja Gopal & Others

(Supreme Court Of India)

Criminal Appeal No. 95 Of 2002 | 21-01-2002

1. Leave granted.

2. When a trial was in progress and reached almost the penultimate stage the High Court stepped in and quashed the criminal proceedings. The aggrieved State has come up with this appeal. The case involved offences under Sections 420, 468 and 471, IPC etc., on the allegation that Canara Bank was defrauded. One of the premise adopted by the High Court was that there was a compromise between the bank officials and the accused and the disputed amount found due from the accused had been paid later. Even assuming that the said stand of the accused is correct, that was not enough for quashing the criminal proceedings. Perhaps that would have been a ground for pleading mitigation at the final stage. Mr. Natarajan, learned Senior Counsel contends that even apart from the payment made the accused is able to establish that there was neither any intention to cheat nor was there any act of forgery. These are matters for the Trial Court to reach when the final conclusion is made. We do not express any opinion on these aspects on merits.

3. Nontheless, we are of the view that the premature quashment made by the High Court is not in accordance with law. We, therefore, allow this appeal and set aside the impugned judgment.

4. We direct the Trial Court to proceed with the trial, and complete the examination of the remaining witnesses. The case shall be disposed of as expeditiously as possible.

Advocates List

For the Petitioner Altaf Ahmad, ASG with P. Parmeswaran, A. Mariarputham, Aruna Mathur, Advocates. For the Respondents R3, Pradeep Dewan, Pramod B. Aggarwala, Praveena Gupta, R1 & R2, S. Natarajan, Sr. Adv. with Romy Chacko, Hariharan, Advocates.

Bench List

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.T. THOMAS

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.N. PHUKAN

Eq Citation

2002 (2) ACR 1273 (SC)

2002 (1) ALT (CRL) 355

(2002) 9 SCC 533

JT 2002 (2) SC 331

LQ/SC/2002/88

HeadNote

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 — Ss. 482 and 362 — Quashment of criminal proceedings — When warranted — Compromise between bank officials and accused and disputed amount paid — Effect — Held, even assuming that said stand of accused is correct, that was not enough for quashing criminal proceedings — Perhaps that would have been a ground for pleading mitigation at final stage — However, premature quashment made by High Court not in accordance with law — Trial Court directed to proceed with trial and complete examination of remaining witnesses — Penal Code, 1860, Ss. 420, 468 and 471 (Paras 2 to 4)