M/S SUVARNA COOPERATIVE BANK LTD.versusSTATE OF KARNATAKA AND ANR.

                         [2021] 9 S.C.R. 389                           389


          M/S SUVARNA COOPERATIVE BANK LTD.                            A
                                 v.
              STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ANR.
                (Criminal Appeal No. 1535 of 2021)
                      DECEMBER 09, 2021                                B
        [M. R. SHAH AND B. V. NAGARATHNA, JJ.]
      Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – ss.482 and 319 –
Quashing of criminal proceedings – Held: Merely because some
other persons who might have committed the offences, but were not
arrayed as accused and were not charge-sheeted cannot be a ground      C
to quash the criminal proceedings against the accused who is charge-
sheeted after a thorough investigation – During the trial if it is
found that other accused persons who committed the offence are
not charge-sheeted, the Court may array those persons as accused
in exercise of powers u/s.319 CrPC.
                                                                       D
      Allowing the appeal, the Court
      HELD: The impugned judgment and order passed by the
High Court quashing the criminal proceedings against the private
respondent– original accused no.1 is unsustainable, both, in law
and on facts. The High Court observed that in absence of the           E
officers of the drawee bank informing the payee’s banker with
reference to dishonour of one of the cheques well within the time
stipulated in the Clearing House Rules which amounts to offence
under Sections 408 and 409 of IPC, without the presence of
accused nos. 2 and 3 in the PCR, the charge-sheet could not
have been filed only against accused no.1. The aforesaid cannot        F
be a ground to quash the criminal proceedings against the accused
who was charge-sheeted by the Investigating Officer after
thorough investigation. Merely because some other persons who
might have committed the offences, but were not arrayed as
accused and were not charge-sheeted cannot be a ground to              G
quash the criminal proceedings against the accused who is charge-
sheeted after a thorough investigation. During the trial if it is
found that other accused persons who committed the offence are
not charge-sheeted, the Court may array those persons as accused
in exercise of powers under Section 319 Cr.P.C. Nothing has been
                                                                       H
                                389
390            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                          [2021] 9 S.C.R.


A     further observed by the High Court on merits and/or on the
      allegations against the private respondent– original accused no.1.
      Under the circumstances, the impugned judgment and order
      passed by the High Court quashing the criminal proceedings
      against the respondent no.2– original accused no.1 deserves
      to be quashed and set aside. [Para 4, 4.1 and 4.2][391-D-F;
B
      392-C-F]
           CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal
      No.1535 of 2021.
            From the Judgment and Order dated 17.07.2014 of the High Court
C     of Karnataka at Bangalore in Criminal Petition No.5763 of 2013.
            Amith Sharma, A. Karthik, Advs. for the Appellant.
            H. V. Nagaraja Rao, Hemant Kumar Sagar, E. C. Vidya Sagar,
      Advs. for the Respondents.

D           The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
            M. R. SHAH, J.
             1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment
      and order dated 17.07.2014 passed by the High Court of Karnataka
      passed in Criminal Petition No.5763 of 2013 by which the High Court
E     has quashed the criminal proceedings against the private respondent
      herein for the offences under Sections 120B, 408, 409, 420 and 149 of
      IPC, the original complainant has preferred the present appeal.
            2. That criminal proceedings were initiated against the private
      respondent herein and others. The complainant – bank filed the complaint
F     under Section 200 Cr.P.C. before the Court of learned Addl. Chief
      Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore being PCR 15250 of 2009 (re-
      numbered as CC 22308 of 2012). Thereafter an FIR (Crime No.127 of
      2010) was registered before the Chickpet Police Station under Sections
      120B, 408, 409, 420 and 149 of IPC. That on completing the investigation
      a charge-sheet was filed against the private respondent herein. The
G     private respondent herein – original accused no.1 approached the High
      Court by way of Criminal Petition No.5763 of 2013 to quash the criminal
      proceedings in exercise of powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
            2.1 By the impugned judgment and order the High Court has
      quashed the criminal proceedings against the private respondent – original
H
   M/S SUVARNA COOPERATIVE BANK LTD. V. STATE OF                            391
         KARNATAKA AND ANR. [M. R. SHAH, J.]

accused no.1 mainly on the ground that in absence of the original accused   A
nos. 2 and 3 in the PCR and in absence of the officers of the drawee
bank informing the payee’s banker with reference to dishonour of one
of the cheques well within the time stipulated in the Clearing House
Rules, they can be said to have committed the offences under Sections
408 and 409 of IPC, the charge-sheet could not have been filed only
                                                                            B
against accused no.1. By observing so the High Court has quashed the
criminal proceedings against the original accused no.1.
      2.2 Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment
and order passed by the High Court quashing the criminal proceedings
against the original accused no.1, the original complainant has preferred
the present appeal.                                                         C

       3. We have heard Shri Amith Kumar, learned counsel appearing
for the appellant and Shri H.V. Nagaraja Rao, learned counsel appearing
for the respondent.
       4. We have perused and considered the impugned judgment and          D
order passed by the High Court and the reasoning given by the High
Court mentioned in paragraphs 7 and 8 while quashing the criminal
proceedings against the original accused no.1. Having gone through and
considered the reasoning given by the High Court while quashing the
criminal proceedings against original accused no.1, we are of the opinion
that the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court quashing      E
the criminal proceedings against the private respondent herein – original
accused no.1 is unsustainable, both, in law and on facts. The High Court
has observed that in absence of the officers of the drawee bank informing
the payee’s banker with reference to dishonour of one of the cheques
well within the time stipulated in the Clearing House Rules which amounts   F
to offence under Sections 408 and 409 of IPC,without the presence of
accused nos. 2 and 3 in the PCR, the charge-sheet could not have been
filed only against accused no.1. While quashing the criminal proceedings
the High Court has observed in para 8 as under:
      “8. In the light of the complainant keeping quite in not taking any   G
      action against incomplete charge sheet, which is filed by the first
      respondent police in arraigning only accused nos. 1 and 6 as
      accused in CC.No.22308/2012, the prosecution against two of
      them without the presence of other persons, who are said to have

                                                                            H
392            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                           [2021] 9 S.C.R.


A           involved in the same, would not be complete charge sheet and the
            alleged offence would not be complete against two of them without
            there being the accomplice to the said act also being arraigned as
            the accused. In that view of the matter, this Court feel that
            prosecuting accused nos. 1 and 6 in the instant case, in the absence
            of accused 2 and 3, would be of no avail and would not take this
B
            matter to the logical end. Hence, the same is required to be
            quashed.”
             4.1 The aforesaid cannot be a ground to quash the criminal
      proceedings against the accused who was charge-sheeted by the
      Investigating Officer after thorough investigation. Merely because some
C     other persons who might have committed the offences, but were not
      arrayed as accused and were not charge-sheeted cannot be a ground to
      quash the criminal proceedings against the accused who is charge-sheeted
      after a thorough investigation. During the trial if it is found that other
      accused persons who committed the offence are not charge-sheeted,
D     the Court may array those personsas accused in exercise of powers
      under Section 319 Cr.P.C. Merely because some of the persons who
      might have committed the offences are not charge-sheeted, cannot be a
      ground to quash the proceedings against the accused charge-sheeted
      after having found prima facie case against him after investigation.
      Nothing has been further observed by the High Court on merits and/or
E     on the allegations against the private respondent herein – original accused
      no.1.
            4.2 Under the circumstances the impugned judgment and order
      passed by the High Court quashing the criminal proceedings against the
      respondent no.2 herein – original accused no.1 deserves to be quashed
F     and set aside.
             5. In view of the above and for the reason stated above present
      appeal succeeds. Impugned common judgment and order passed by the
      High Court quashing the criminal proceedings against the private
      respondent no.2 – original accused no.1 initiated pursuant to private
G     complaint filed in PCR 15250 of 2009 filed before learned Addl. Chief
      Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore which were subsequently registered
      as FIR No.127 of 2010 on the file of Chickpet Police Station and thereby
      registered as CC No.22308 of 2012 is hereby quashed and set aside.
      Present appeal is allowed accordingly.
H
   M/S SUVARNA COOPERATIVE BANK LTD. V. STATE OF                           393
         KARNATAKA AND ANR. [M. R. SHAH, J.]

       Now, on quashing and setting aside the impugned judgment and        A
order, the respondent no.2 herein – original accused no.1 be further
prosecuted for the offences for which he was charge-sheeted and shall
face trial which shall be dealt with and considered in accordance with
law and on its own merits.
                                                                           B
Bibhuti Bhushan Bose                                     Appeal allowed.




                                                                           C




                                                                           D




                                                                           E




                                                                           F




                                                                           G




                                                                           H