SATISH MEHRAversusSTATE OF N.C.T. OF DELHI & ANR.

                     [2012) 11 S.C.R. 1


                      SATISH MEHRA                             A
                             v.
           STATE OF N.C.T. OF DELHI & ANR.
           (Criminal Appeal No. 1834 of 2012)
                   NOVEMBER 22, 2012
                                                               B
      [P. SATHASIVAM AND RANJAN GOGOi, JJ.]

    Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973:

     s.482 - Complaint of cheating and forgery in renewal and c
encashment of Foreign <;urrency Non-eResident Fixed
Deposits - Charges framed against Chief Manager and
Senior Manager of Bank and wife and father-in-law of
complainant - Quashing of - Held: Power uls 482, to interdict
a criminal proceeding would be available for exercise not only
                                                                0
at the threshold of the criminal proceeding but also at a
relatively advanced stage thereof, namely, after framing of the
charge against the accused - Framing of a charge against a
person substantially affects his liberty - In the instant case,
no positive role having been attributed to the Bank officials E
in facilitating any action of the other accused persons,
proceedings against the said Bank officials are not
maintainable - Constitution of India, 1950 - Art.21.

     s.482 - Complaint by husband against his wife and
father-in-law for causing renewal and encashment of Foreign F
Currency Non-Resident Fixed Deposits by cheating and
forgery - Accused stated to have used an old Investment
Renewal Form containing old signatures of the couple which
had been misplaced - Held: The signatures and endorsement
                                                   '
made by accused (father-in-law) on the said form had   been G
found to be relatively fresh in comparison to the signatures
of the couple on the said form - It prima facie discloses
commission of offences ulss 467, 468, 471 and 120-B /PC -
Order of High Court quashing the said charges in respect of
                             1                                 H
    2       SUPREME COURT REPORTS             (2012] 11 S.C.R.


A   the said FD against the accused concerned is, clearly
    unsustainable, and is, therefore, set aside - Penal Code,
    1860 - ss. 467, 468, 471 and 120-8.

        Penal Code, 1860:
B       s.466 - 'Forgery' - Explained.

        There was matrimonial discord between the
   appellant-complainant and his wife ('AM'). On 6.1.1994,
   the appellant filed a complaint with the police on the basis
c of which an FIR was registered. The case of the appellant
   was that he alongwith his wife had opened five Foreign
  Currency Non-Resident Fixed Deposits (FCNRFD); that
  his father-in-law, namely, 'SKK' forged his signatures on
  FD receipts and got them renewed in the sole name of
0 'AM' and the latter unauthorisedly encashed the same.
  The trial court framed charges against the Chief Manager
  and Senior Manager of the Branch of Canara Bank, for
  offences punishable ulss. 120-B and 420 IPC in respect
  of FD Nos.22/91 and 9/92 of Canara Bank; and against
E the father-in-law (SKK) and the wife ('AM') of the
  complainant for offences punishable u/ss. 120-B, 420, 467,
  468, 471 IPC in respect of all five FDs. All the accused
  approached the High Court for quashing of the charges.
  The High Court declined any relief to both the Bank
  Officials, but quashed the charges framed against 'SKK'
F for offences punisha~le u/ss.120B and 420 IPC in respect
  of FD Nos. 22191 and 9/92 as well as the charges framed
  against him for offences punishable u/ss.467, 468 and
  471 IPC read with s.120B IPC. The High Court further
  _interfered with the charges framed against accused 'AM'
G for offences punishable u/ss. 467, 468 and 471 read with
  120-B IPC. The rest of the charges against the said two
  accused were maintained. Aggrieved, the two Bank
  Officials filed appeals against the order of High Court
  declining relief to them and the complainant filed the
H other appeal against part relief granted to accused 'SKK'.
  SATISH MEHRA v. STATE OF N.C.T. OF DELHI &           3
                    ANR.
    Disposing of the appeals, the Court                    A

     HELD: 1.1. Though a criminal complaint lodged
before the court under the provisions of Chapter XV of
the Code of Criminal Procedure or an FIR lodged in the
police station under Chapter XII of the Code has to be
                                                            8
brought to its logical conclusion in accordance with the
procedure prescribed, power has been conferred u/s.482
of the Code to interdict such a proceeding in the event
the institution/continuance of the criminal proceeding
amounts to an abuse of the process of court. Such power
would be available for exercise not only at the threshold C
 of a criminal proceeding but also at a relatively advanced
 stage thereof, namely, after framing of the charge against
 the accused. In fact, the power to quash a proceeding
 after framing of charge would appear to be somewhat
 wider as, at that stage, the materials revealed by the D
 investigation carried out usually comes on record and
 such materials can be looked into, not for the purpose of
 determining the guilt or innocence of the accused but for
 the purpose of drawing satisfaction that such materials,
 even if accepted in its entirety, do not, in any manner, E
 disclose the commission of the offence alleged against .
 the accused. [Para 14-15] [12-E-G; 13-G-H; 14-A-C]

     R.P. Kapur vs. State of Punjab 1960 SCR 388 = AIR
1960 SC 866; and Padal Venkata Rama Reddy alias Ramu       F
vs. Kowuri Styanarayana Reddy and Ors. 2011 (9) SCR 623
= 2011 (12) sec 437 - relied on
       1.2. Framing of a charge against an accused
 substantially affects 'the person's liberty. The apparent
  and close proximity between the framing of a charge in G
  criminal proceedings and the paramount rights of a
  person arrayed as an accused under Art, 21 of the
  Constitution can be ignored only with peril. In the instant
· case, neither in the FIR nor in the charge sheet or in any
  of the materials collected in the course of investigation H
    4          SUPREME COURT REPORTS          (2012] 11 S.C.R.

A any positive role of either of the appellants-Bank Officials
  has been disclosed in the matter of renewal and
  encashment of the fixed deposits. All that appears against
  them is that one was the Chief Manager of the Bank
  whereas the other, at the relevant time, was working as
B the Senior Manager. It is certainly not the prosecution
  case that either of the accused-appellants had authorised
  or even facilitated any of the action of the other two
  accused. In such a situation to hold either of the Bank
  officials to be, even prima facie, liable for any of the
c alleged wrongful acts would be a matter of conjecture as
  no such conclusion can be reasonably and justifiably
  drawn from the materials available on record. 'Therefore,
  the criminal proceeding in the present form and on the
  allegations levelled are clearly not maintainable against
  either of the two Bank officials. [Para 19] [17-D-E, G-H; 18-
0
    A, D, G]
      State of Karnataka vs. L. Muniswamy and others 1977
  (3) SCR 113 =AIR 1977 SC 1489; Century Spinning &
  Manufacturing Co. vs. State of Maharashtra AIR 1972 SC
E 545 - relied on

       2.1. From the materials on record it appears that in
  so far as FD No. 22/91 is concerned, an endorsement on
  the reverse of the FD was made by accused 'SKK' that
F the said F.D. may be renewed in the name of 'AM'.
  However, renewal of the said FD was made by the Bank
  on the basis of a letter dated 09.10.1992 written by 'AM'
  to the Bank. Therefore, no liability in respect of the FD
  bearing No.22/91 can be fastened on accused 'SKK'.
G Neither is there any allegation against him with regard to
  receipt of the money against the said FD by accused
  'AM'. Similarly, in respect of FD bearing No.9/92 there is
  no allegation that renewal of the said FD was made on
  the basis of any endorsement or request made by 'SKK'.
  Further, there is nothing on record to show that FD
H
  SATISH MEHRA v. STATE OF N.C.T. OF DELHI &          5
                    ANR.
Nos.22/91 and 9/92 of Canara Bank and FDS Nos.103402 A
and 103403 of Punjab and Sind Bank were renewed in the
sole name of 'AM' on the basis of the endorsement made
on the reverse of the FD receipts by accused 'SKK' to the
said effect. In fact, the said FDs were renewed on the
basis of the letters addressed to the Bank by accused B
'AM'. Therefore, it cannot be held that the High Court
committed any error in quashing the charges against
accused 'SKK' for offences punishable u/ss.120B and
420 IPC in respect of FD Nos.22/91 and 9/92, as also for
offences punishable u/ss.467, 468, 471 read with s. 120B C
IPC as regards FD Nos.22/91 and 9/92 of Canara Bank
and FDS Nos.103402 and 103403 of Punjab and Sind
Bank. [Para 20-21] [19-B-G]

     2.2. However, in respect of FD No.0756223 of Vyasa
Bank it appears that renewal of the said FD in the sole D
name of 'AM' was made on the basis of the Investment
Renewal Form dated 22.03.1993 which was signed by
both the complainant and 'AM'. The said form also
contained an endorsement made under the signature of
accused 'SKK' to the effect that the FD be renewed in the E
sole name of 'AM'. It has been found upon investigation
and it has also been recorded by the trial court as well
as by the High Court that the signatures of 'AM' and the
complainant on the said Investment Renewal Form were
old signatures and that the Investment Renewal Form had F
been misplaced by the complainant. The signature and
the endorsement made by 'SKK' on the said form had
been found to be relatively fresh in comparison to the
signatures of 'AM' and the complainant on the said form.
This is an additional fact that has to receive due G
consideration in the process of determination of the prima
facie liability of accused 'SKK' u/ss. 467, 468 and 471 read
with s. 120B IPC. As per the definition of "forgery"
contained in s. 464, the action of accused 'SKK' in making
the endorsement in the Investment Renewal Form dated H
    6       SUPREME COURT REPORTS             [2012] 11 S.C.R.


A 22.03.1993 of Vyasa Bank, in the light of the surrounding
  facts and circumstances, prima facie, would amount to
  making of a document with an intention of causing it to
  be believed that the same was made by or by the
  authority of the joint account holder, (the complainant).
B The said document having contained an endorsement
  that the FD be altered/renewed in the single name of
  accused 'AM' and the Bank having so acted, prima facie,
  the commission of offences u/ss. 467, 468 and 471 read
  with s.120B IPC is disclosed against accused 'SKK'. The
C order of the High Court quashing the charges framed
  against 'SKK' u/ss. 467, 468 and 471 IPC read with
  s. 120B IPC in so far as the Investment Renewal Form
  dated 22.03.1993 and FD No.0756223 with Vyasa Bank,
  therefore, is clearly unsustainable. The said part of the
  order of the High Court in so far as the accused 'SKK' is
D concerned, is set aside. [Paras 21 and 22] [19-G-H; 20-A-
  H; 21-A-C]
                        Case Law Reference:
        1960 SCR 388             relied on           Para 14
E
        1977 (3) SCR 113         relied on           Para 16
        AIR 1972 SC 545          relied on           Para 17
        2011 (9) SCR 623         relied on           Para 17
F
        CRIMINAL APP ELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal
    No. 1834 of 2012.

        From the Judgment & Order dated 13.10.2011 of the High
    Court of Delhi at New Delhi in Crl. Rev. P.No. 299 of 2003.
G
                              WITH
    Crl.A. Nos. 1836 & 1835 of 2012.

        M.N. Krishnamani, Brijender Chhahar, P. Vishwanatha
H
  SATISH MEHRA v. STATE OF N.C.T. OF DELHI &                   7
                    ANR.
Shetty, Mukul Gupta, Vishal Arun, Sanjay Chadha, Pradeep            A
Kumar Bakshi, Shailesh Madiyal, Baldev Atrey, Shailendra
Saini, B.V. Balaram Das, T.A. Khan, Harish, Rohit Bhardwaj,
D.N. Goburdhan Respondent-in-Person for the appearing
parties.
                                                                    B
    The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

    RANJAN GOGOi, J. 1. Leave granted.

     2. In a proceeding registered as FIR case No. 110/94
(P.S. Connaught Place) charges under different provisions of        c
the Indian Penal Code were framed by the learned Trial Court,
inter-alia, against the accused appellants G.K. Bhatt and R.K.
Arora. In the revision petition filed before the High Court (Crl.
Rev. P. No. 304/2003) for quashing of the charges framed,
relief has been denied to the two appellants. However, part         D
relief had been granted to two other accused i.e. Anita Mehra
(petitioner in Crl. M.C. No. 2255/2003) and S.K. Khosla
(Petitioner in Crl. Rev.P. No.299/2003). While denial of relief
by the High Court by the impugned order dated 13th October,
2011 has been challenged in the appeals filed by the accused        E
R.K. Arora and G.K. Bhatt, the grant of partial relief to one of
the two co-accused i.e. S.K. Khosla has been challenged in the
appeal filed by the complainant/ first respondent, Salish Mehra.

    3. The facts giving rise to the present appeals may now
be noted in some detail.                                            F

     The appellant Satish Mehra and accused Anita Mehra were
married some time in the year 1980. At the relevant point of
time they were living in the USA. From about October, 1992,
the relations between husband and wife became strained and          G
both were locked in a series of litigations including litigations
pertaining to custody of the children born out of the marriage.

   4. On 06.01.1994, the appellant Satish Mehra lodged a
complaint before the Additional Deputy Commissioner of Police
                                                                    H
    8           SUPREME COURT REPORTS           [2012] 11 S.C.R.


A New Delhi that he along with his wife Anita Mehra had opened
  five Foreign Currency Non-Resident Fixed Deposits (FCNR
  FD) of the total value of about Rs.20,00,000/- in their joint
  names .. According to the complainant, accused S.K. Khosla
  who is his father-in- law had forged his signatures on the F.D
B receipts and got the same renewed in the sole name of Anita
  Mehra who, thereafter, encashed the value thereof and
  unauthorisedly received the payments due. The details of the
  FCNR FD, according to the complainant, are as follows:

         "(i)    FCNR FD Nos.9/92 and 22/91 with Canara Bank;
c
         (ii)    FCNR FD Nos.103402 and 103403 with Punjab
                 and Sind Bank and ;

         (iii)   FCNR FD No. 0756223 with Vyasa Bank."
D       5. On receipt of the aforesaid complaint, FIR No.110/94
    was registered, on investigation whereof the following facts
    appear to have come to light:

        (I) S.K. Khosla had made an endorsement on the reverse
E       of the receipt pertaining to FCNR FD Nos.22/91 to the
        effect that the said FDR be renewed in the sole name of
        Anita Mehra;

        (II) On 23.11.1992 and 12.03.1993 Canara Bank renewed
        FCNR FD Nos.22/91 and 9/92 respectively on the basis
F       of the letters dated 09.10.1992 written by Anita Mehra to
        the Bank requesting for the said renewals. Pursuant to the
        said renewals made by the Bank, Anita Mehra encashed
        FD No. 22/91;.

G       (Ill) Before FD No.9/92 could be encashed by Anita Mehra
        the Bank cancelled the renewal of the said FD in the sole
        name of Anita Mehra and re-renewed the same in the joint
        names of Anita Mehra and Salish Mehra;

        (IV) On 09.11.1992 Punjab and Sind Bank renewed FDs
H
  SATISH MEHRA v. STATE OF N.C.T. OF DELHI &                    9
           ANR. [RANJAN GOGOi, J.]

    Nos. 103402 and 103403 in the sole name of Anita Mehra            A
    on the basis of an endorsement made by S.K. Khosla on
    the reverse of the receipt of each of the said FDs to the
    effect that the said FDs be renewed in the sole name of
    Anita Mehra;
                                                                      B
    (V) Punjab and Sind Bank claimed to have renewed the
    FD Nos. 103402 and 103403 in the sole name of Anita
    Mehra on the basis of a letter dated 09.10.1992 written
    by Anita Mehra to the Bank requesting for such renewal
    but the said letter seems to be a manipulated document            C
    as it was received by the Bank on 09.11.1993 which was
    much after the renewal of the said FDs; and

    (VI) On 22.03.1993 Vyasa Bank renewed FCNR FD No.
    0756223 on the basis of a Investment Renewal Form
    dated 22.03.1993 signed by both Salish Mehra and Anita            D
    Mehra; however Salish Mehra claimed that he had made
    no such request to Vyasa bank and that he had misplaced
    a blank Investment Renewal Form of Vyasa Bank which
    contained his signature.
                                                                      E
    (VII) There was an endorsement of the accused S.K.
    Khosla in the Investment Renewal Form to the effect that
    FD No. 0756223 of Vyasa Bank be renewed in the sole
    name of accused Anita Mehra as against the joint names
    of Anita Mehra and Salish Mehra. The signatures of Anita
    Mehra and Salish Mehra in the Investment Renewal Form
                                                                      F
    appear to be old and faded whereas the endorsement
    made by S.K.Khosla on the said form is a fresh one. The
    passport number of Salish Mehra entered in the said Form
    is the old/surrendered passport of the said person.
                                                                      G
      6. In the light of the aforesaid facts revealed in the course
of investigation of FIR No. 110/94, a cancellation report was
filed before the learned trial court. The appellant Salish Mehra
filed his objections to the said cancellation report. Thereafter,
on a due consideration, the learned trial court directed further      H
    10       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                [2012] 11 S.C.R.


A investigation in the matter in the course of which the FD receipts
  in question; the letters dated 09.10.1992 purportedly of
  accused Anita Mehra to the Canara and Punjab and Sind Bank;
  the Investment Renewal Form dated 22.03.1993 submitted to
  Vyasa Bank and the admitted signatures of accused Anita
B Mehra, S.K. Khosla and.the complainant Satish Mehra were
  sent to the Central Forensic Laboratory. On receipt of the report
  of the laboratory, charge sheet dated 28.08.1997 was filed by
  the investigating agency against the accused S.K. Khosla
  alone.
c      7. The learned trial court, however, directed summons to
  be issued to the two appellants G.K. Bhat, Chief Manager of
  the concerned Branch of Canara Bank and R.K. Arora, Senior
  Manager of the said Branch as well to one A.P. Singhna,
  Manager of Punjab and Sind Bank and also to the accused
D Anita Mehra (wife of the complainant) for trial for offences
  punishable under Sections 420, 468, 471 read with Section
  120 B of the Indian Penal Code.

       8. Against the aforesaid order of the learned trial court, the
E High Court of Delhi was moved by the accused for setting aside
  the order issuing summons and for quashing the proceeding
  as a whole. By order dated 23.10.2002, the High Court took
  the view that as all issues and contentions raised can be so
  raised before the learned trial court at the time of framing of
F charge, interference would not be justified. Thereafter, by order
  dated 21.12.2002 and 08.01.2003, the learned trial court
  framed charges against the accused appellants, G.K. Bhat and
  R.K. Arora under Sections 1208 and 420 of the Indian Penal
  Code (in respect of FD Nos. 22/91 and 9/92 of Canara Bank).
  Charges were also framed against accused S.K. Khosla and
G Anita Mehra under Sections 120 B, 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC in
  respect of all five FDs.

      9. Aggrieved by the aforesaid orders of the learned trial
  court, all the accused moved the High Court of Delhi for
H quashing of the charges framed against them and also for
  SATISH MEHRA v. STATE OF N.C.T. OF DELHI &                  11
           ANR. [RANJAN GOGOi, J.]
interference with the Criminal proceedings pending against the      A
accused before the learned trial court.

     10. The High Court, by the impugned order dated
13.10.2011, while declining any relief to the appellants G.K.
Bhat and R.K. Arora, set aside the charges framed against           B
accused S.K. Khosla under Sections 120 B and 420 IPC in
respect of FD Nos. 22/91 and 9/92 as well as the charges
framed against the said accused under Sections 467, 468 and
471 IPC read with Section 120 B IPC. In so far as the accused
Anita Mehra is concerned, the High Court interfered with the
charges framed against the aforesaid accused under Sections         C
467, 468 and 471 read with Section 120 B. The rest of the
charges in so far as the aforesaid two accused S.K. Khosla
and Anita Mehra is concerned were maintained by the High
Court.
                                                                    D
       11. Aggrieved, the present appeals have been filed by
accused G.K. Bhat and R.K. Arora in so far as FD Nos. 22/91
and 9/92 are concerned. While the other accused have not
challenged the order of the High Court declining full and
complete reliefs as prayed for by them, it is the complainant/      E
first informant, Salish Mehra, who has instituted the connected
appeal in so far as the part relief granted to accused S.K.
Khosla is concerned.

      12. We have heard S/Shri M.N. Krishnamani, Brijender
Chhahr, P.V.Shetty and Mukul Gupta, learned senior counsel          F
for the respective parties.

      13. Learned counsel for the appellants G.K.Bhat and R.K.
Arora has argued that no material whatsoever has been brought
on record to, even prima facie, show the involvement of either      G
of the accused - appellants with any of the offences alleged.
Mere holding of the office of Chief Manager and Senior
Manager of the concerned Branch of the Canara Bank, by itself,
will not make the accused - appellants liable unless the positive
                                                                    H
      12     SUPREME COURT REPORTS               [2012] 11 S.C.R.


A  role of either of the appellants in the renewal of the FDs in the
  sole name of accused Anita Mehra or in the encashment of one
  of the FDs (FD No.22/91) by the aforesaid accused is
  disclosed. Learned counsel has also relied on the provisions
  of the Regulations/Guidelines, relating to Fixed Deposit, as in
B force in the Bank to contend that the action of accused -
  appellants has been in conformity with the mandate of the
  Banking Norms evenjf ii is to be assumed that they had any
  role to play in the matter of renewal of the FDs in the sole name
  of the accused Anita Mehra and the subsequent encashment
c of FD No.22/91. On the other hand, learned counsel for the first
  informant /appellant, Salish Mehra has contended that the
  connivance of the Bank officials in the fraudulent renewal of the
  FDs is ex facie apparent and further that the endorsements
  made by accused S.K. Khosla on the reverse of the FDs and
D in the Investment Renewal Form of Vyasa Bank clearly attract
  the ingredients of the offence of 'forgery' as defined under
  Section 464 of the IPC. It is, therefore, submitted that the
  interference made by the High Court with the charges framed
  under Sections 467, 468, 471 and 120B IPC against accused
  S.K. Khosla is not tenable in law.
E
       14. Though a criminal complaint lodged before the court
  under the provisions of Chapter XV of the Code of Criminal
  Procedure or an FIR lodged in the police station under Chapter
  XII of the Code has to be brought to its logical conclusion in
F accordance with the procedure prescribed, power has been
  conferred under Section 482 of the Code to interdict such a
  proceeding in the event the institution/continuance of the
  criminal proceeding amounts to an abuse of the process of
  court. An early discussion of the law in this regard can be found
G in the decision of this court in R.P. Kapur vs. State of Punjab'
  wherein the parameters of exercise of the inherent power
  vested by Section 561A of the repealed Code of Criminal
  Procedure, 1898, (corresponding of Section 482 Cr.P.C.,
  1973) had been laid down in the following terms :
H 1    AIR 1960 SC 866
  SATISH MEHRA v. STATE OF N.C.T. OF DELHI &                  13
           ANR. [RANJAN GOGOi, J.]
           " (i) Where institution/continuance of criminal A
    proceedings against an accused may amount to the
    abuse of the process of the court or that the quashing of
    the impugned proceedings would secure the ends of
    justice;
                                                                    B
         (ii) where it manifestly appears that there is a legal
    bar against the institution or continuance of the said
    proceeding e.g. want of sanction;

          (iii) where the allegations in the first information
    report or the complaint taken at their face value and           C
    accepted in their entirety, do not constitute the offence
    alleged; and

          (iv) where the allegations constitute an offence
    alleged but there is either no legal evidence adduced or        0
    evidence adduced clearly or manifestly fails to prove the
    charge."

       15. The power to interdict a proceeding either at the
threshold or at an intermediate stage of the trial is inherent in
a High Court on the broad principle that in case the allegations    E
made in the FIR or the criminal complaint, as may be, prima
facie do not disclose a triable offence there can be reason as
to why the accused should be made to suffer the agony of a
legal proceeding that more often than not gets protracted. A
prosecution which is bound to become lame or a sham ought           F
to interdicted in the interest of justice as continuance thereof
will amount to an abuse of the process of the law. This is the
core basis on which the power to interfere with a pending
criminal proceeding has been recognized to be inherent in
every High Court. The power, though available, being extra          G
ordinary in nature has to be exercised sparingly and only if the
attending facts and circumstances satisfies the narrow test
indicated above, namely, that even accepting all the allegations
levelled by the prosecution, no offence is disclosed. However,
 if so warranted, such power would be available for exercise not    H
    14         SUPREME COURT REPORTS               (2012) 11 S.C.R.


A only at the threshold of a criminal proceeding but also at a
  relatively advanced stage thereof, namely, after framing of the
  charge against the accused. In fact the power to quash a
  proceeding after framing of charge would appear to be
  somewhat wider as, at that stage, the materials revealed by the
B investigation carried out usually comes on record and such
  materials can be looked into, not for the purpose of determining
  the guilt or innocence of the accused but for the purpose of
  drawing satisfaction that such materials, even if accepted in its
  entirety, do not, in any manner, disclose the commission of the
c offence alleged against the accused.
         16. The above nature and extent of the power finds an
    exhaustive enumeration in a judgment of this court in State of
    Kamataka vs. L. Muniswamy and others2 which may be usefully
    extracted below :
D
          " 7. The second limb of Mr Mookerjee's argument is that
          in any event the High Court could not take upon itself the
          task of assessing or appreciating the weight of material
          on the record in order to find whether any charges could
E         be legitimately framed against the respondents. So long
          as there is some material on the record to connect the
          accused with the crime, says the learned counsel, the
          case must go on and the High Court has no jurisdiction
          to put a precipitate or premature end to the proceedings
F         on the belief that the prosecution is not likely to succeed.
          This, in our opinion, is too broad a proposition to accept.
          Section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 2 of
          1974, provides that:

G
          This section is contained in Chapter XVIII called "Trial
          Before a Court of Session". It is clear from the provision
          that the Sessions Court has the power to discharge an

H 2.     AIR 1977 SC 1489.
SATISH MEHRA v. STATE OF N.C.T. OF DELHI &              15
         ANR. [RANJAN GOGOi, J.]
  accused if after perusing the record and hearing the A
  parties he comes to the conclusion, for reasons to be
  recorded, that there is not sufficient ground for proceeding
  against the accused. The object of the provision which
  requires the Sessions Judge to record his reasons is to
  enable the superior court to examine the correctness of B
  the reasons for which the Sessions Judge has held that
  there is or is not sufficient ground for proceeding against
  the accused. The High Court therefore is entitled to go
  into the reasons given by the Sessions Judge in support
  of his order and to determine for itself whether the order C
  is justified by the facts and circumstances of the case.
  Section 482 of the New Code, which corresponds to
  Section 561-A of the Code of 1898, provides that:


                                                             D
  In the exercise of this wholesome power, the High Court
  is entitled to quash a proceeding if it comes to the
  conclusion that allowing the proceeding to continue would
  be an abuse of the process of the Court or that the ends
  of.justice require that the proceeding ought to be E
  quashed. The saving of the High Court's inherent powers,
  both in civil and criminal matters, is designed to achieve
  a salutary public purpose which is that a court proceeding
  ought not to be permitted to degenerate into a weapon
  of harassment or persecution. In a criminal case, the
                                                               F
  veiled object behind a lame prosecution, the very nature
  of the material on which the structure of the prosecution
  rests and the like would justify the High Court in quashing
  the proceeding in the interest of justice. The ends of
  justice are higher than the ends of mere law though G
  justice has got to be administered according to laws
  made by the legislature. The compelling necessity for
   making these observations is that without a proper
   realisation of the object and purpose of the provision
   which seeks to save the inherent powers of the High
   Court to do justice, between the State and its subjects, it H
     16        SUPREME COURT REPORTS               [2012] 11 S.C.R.

A          would be impossible to appreciate the width and contours
           of that salient jurisdiction."

       It would also be worthwhile to recapitulate an earlier
  decision of this court in Century Spinning & Manufacturing Co.
  vs. State of Maharashtra 3 noticed in L. Muniswamy's case
8
  (Supra) holding that the order framing a charge affects a
  person's liberty substantially and therefore it is the duty of the
  court to consider judicially whether the materials warrant the
  framing of the charge. It was also held that the court ought not
  to blindly accept the decision of the prosecution that the
C accused be asked to face a trial.

       17. While dealing with contours of the inherent power under
  Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash a criminal proceeding, another
  decision of this court in Padal Venkata Rama Reddy alias
D Ramu vs. Kowuri Satyanaryana Reddy and others reported
  in (2011) 12 sec 437 to which one of us (Justice
  P.Sathasivam) was a party may be usefully·noticed. In the said
  decision after an exhaustive consideration of the principles
  governing the exercise of the said power as laid down in several
E earlier decisions this court held that:

          31 ..... When exercising jurisdiction under Section 482
          of the Code, the High Court would not ordinarily embark
          upon an enquiry whether the evidence in question is
          reliable or not or whether on reasonable appreciation of it
F         accusation would not be sustained. That is the function of
          the trial Judge. The scope of exercise of power under
          Section 482 and the categories of cases where the High
          Court may exercise its power under it relating to
          cognizable offences to prevent abuse of process of any
G         court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice were set
          out in detail in Bhajan La/4. The powers possessed by the
          High Court under Section 482 are very wide and at the

    3.   AIR 1972 SC 545.
H 4.     1992 Supp. (1) sec 335.
  SATISH MEHRA v. STATE OF N.C.T. OF DELHI &                  17
           ANR. [RANJAN GOGOi, J.]
    same time the power requires great caution in its exercise.     A
    The Court must be careful to see that its decision in
    exercise of this power is based on sound principles. The
    inherent power should not be exercised to stifle a legitimate
    prosecution."
                                                                    B
     18. In an earlier part of this order the allegations made in
the FIR and the facts disclosed upon investigation of the same
have already been noticed. The 90nclusions of the High Court
in the petitions filed by the accused for quashing of the charges
framed against them have also been taken note of along with         C
the fact that in the present appeals only a part of said
conclusions of the High Court is under challenge and therefore,
would be required to be gone into.

      19. The view expressed by this Court in Century
Spinning's case (supra) and in L. Muniswamy's case (supra) D
to the effect that the framing of a charge against an accused
substantially affects the person's liberty would require a
reiteration at this stage. The apparent and close proximity
between the framing of a charge in a criminal proceeding and
the paramount rights of a person arrayed as an accused under E
Article 21 of the Constitution can be ignored only with peril. Any
examination of the validity of a criminal charge framed against
an accused cannot overlook the fundamental requirement laid
down in the decisions rendered in Century Spinning and
Muniswamy (supra). It is from the aforesaid perspective that F
we must proceed in the matter bearing in mind the cardinal
principles of law that have developed over the years as
fundamental to any examination of the issue as to whether the
charges framed are justified or not. So analysed, we find that
in the present case neither in the FIR nor in the charge sheet G
or in any of the materials collected in the course of investigation
any positive role of either of the appellants, i.e., G.K. Bhat and
R.K. Arora has been disclosed in the matter of renewal and
encashment of the fixed deposits. All that appears against the
aforesaid two accused is that one was the Chief Manager of H
    18        SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 [2012] 11 S.C.R.


A   the Bank whereas the other accused was at the relevant time
    working as the Senior Manager. What role, if any, either of the
     accused had in renewing the two fixed deposits in the sole
     name of Anita Mehra or the role that any of them may have had
     in the payment of the amount due against FD No. 21/91 to Anita
B    Mehra or in cancelling the FD No.9/92 renewed in the sole
     name of Anita Mehra and thereafter making a fresh FD in the
    joint Anita Mehra and Satish Mehra, is not disclosed either in
    the FIR filed or materials collected during the course of
     investigation or in the charge sheet filed before the court. There
C    can be no manner of doubt that some particular individual
    connected with the Bank must have authorized the aforesaid
     acts. However, the identity of the said person does not appear
    from the materials on record. It is certainly not the prosecution
    case that either of the accused-appellants had authorised or
D   even facilitated any of the aforesaid action. In such a situation
    to hold either of the accused-appellants to be, even prima facie,
     liable for any of the alleged wrongful acts would be a matter of
    conjecture as no such conclusion can be reasonably and
    justifiably drawn from the materials available on record. A
E   criminal trial cannot be allowed to assume the character of
    fishing and roving enquiry. It would not be permissible in law to
    permit a prosecution to linger, limp and continue on the basis
    of a mere hope and expectation that in the trial some material
    may be found to implicate the accused. Such a course of action
F   is not contemplated in the system of criminal jurisprudence that
    has been evolved by the courts over the years. A criminal trial,
    on the contrary, is contemplated only on definite allegations,
    prima facie, establishing the commission of an offence by the
    accused which fact has to be proved by leading unimpeachable
G   and acceptable evidence in the course of the trial against the
    accused. We are, therefore, of the view that the criminal
    proceeding in the present form and on the allegations levelled
    is clearly not maintainable against either of the accused -
    appellant G.K. Bhat and R.K. Arora.

H        20. The next question that has to be addressed is whether
  SATISH MEHRA v. STATE OF N.C.T. OF DELHI &                19
           ANR. [RANJAN GOGOi, J.)
the criminal charges against accused S.K. Khosla under A
Sections 120B and 420 IPC in so far as FD Nos. 22/91 and
9/92 are concerned along with the charges under Sections 467,
468 and 471 read with Section 120B of the IPC had been
rightly quashed by the High Court. From the materials on record
it appears that in so far as FD No. 22/91 is concerned an B
endorsement on the reverse of the FD was made by accused
S.K. Khosla that the said F.D. may be renewed in the name of
Anita Mehra. However, renewal of the said FD was made by
the Bank on the basis of a letter dated 09.10.1992 written by
Anita Mehra to the Bank. If the above fact has been revealed c
in the course of investigation of the FIR no liability in respect
of the FD bearing No.22/91 can be fastened on the accused
S.K. Khosla. Neither is there any allegation against S.K. Khosla
with regard to receipt of the money against the aforesaid FD
by Anita Mehra. Similarly in respect of FD bearing No.9/92 D
there is no allegation that renewal of the said FD was made
on the basis of any endorsement or request made by S.K.
 Khosla. In the light of above facts it cannot be held that the High
Court had committed any error in quashing the charges under
Sections 120B and 420 IPC against the accused S.K. Khosla E
 in so far as the aforesaid two FDs, i.e. FD Nos.22/91 and 9/
92, are concerned.

     2.1. Coming to the charges under Sections 467, 468, 471
read with Section 120B IPC framed against accused S.K.
Khosla, we do not find that FD Nos.22/91 and 9/92 of Canara       F
Bank and FDS Nos.103402 and 103403 of Punjab and Sind
Bank were renewed in the sole name of Anita Mehra on the
basis of the endorsement made on the reverse of the FD
receipts by accused SK Khosla to the above effect. In fact, the
said FDs were renewed on the basis of the letters addressed       G
to the Bank by accused - Anita Mehra. However, in respect of
FD No.0756223 of Vyasa Bank it appears that renewal of the
aforesaid FD in the sole name of Anita Mehra was made on
the basis of the Investment Renewal Form dated 22.03.1993
which was signed by both Salish Mehra and Anita Mehra. The        H
    20       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                [2012] 11 S.C.R.


A said form also contained an endorsement made under the
   signature of accused SK Khosla to the effect that the FD be
   renewed in the sole name of Anita Mehra. It has been found
   upon investigation of the FIR and it has also been recorded by
  the learned trial court as well as by the High Court that the
B signatures of Anita Mehra and Salish Mehra on the aforesaid
  Investment Renewal Form were old signatures and that the
   Investment Renewal Form had been misplaced by Salish
  Mehra. The particulars of Salish Mehra entered in the said
  Investment Renewal Form, i.e., Passport number etc. being of
c the expired Passport can be understood to be facts supporting
  the allegations made in the FIR and the conclusion of the
  investigating agency that the accused S.K. Khosla had used
  an Investment Renewal Form signed by Salish Mehra which
  was misplaced by him. The signature and the endorsement
0 made by S.K. Khosla on the said form had also been found,
  upon investigation, to be relatively fresh in comparison to the
  signatures of Anita Mehra and Satish Mehra on the said form.
  This is an additional fact that has to receive due consideration
  in the process of determination of the prima facie liability of the
E accused S.K. Khosla under Sections 467, 468 and 471 read
  with Section 1208 of the Indian Penal Code.

        22. Section 464 of Indian Penal Code which defines the
  offence of "forgery'' encompasses a dishonest or fraudulent act
  of a person in making a document with the intention of causing
F it to be believed that such document was made, signed, sealed
  etc. by or by the authority of a person by whom or by whose
  authority he knows that it was not made, signed, sealed,
  executed etc. If such an act of a person is covered by the
  definition of "forgery" contained in Section 464 of the Penal
G Code we do not see as to why the action of the accused S.K.
  Khosla in making the endorsement in the Investment ~newal
  Form dated 22.03.1993 of Vyasa Bank, in the light of the
  surrounding facts and circumstances already noted, cannot,
  prima facie, amount to making of a document with an intention
H of causing it to be believed that the same was made by or by
  SATISH MEHRA v. STATE OF N.C.T. OF DELHI &                21
           ANR. [RANJAN GOGOi, J.)
the authority of the joint account holder Satish Mehra. The said A
document having contained an endorsement that the FD be
altered/renewed in the single name of accused Anita Mehra
and the Bank having so acted, prima facie, the commission of
offences under Sections 467, 468 and 471 read with Section
120B IPC, in our considered view. is disclosed against the B
accused S. K. Khosla. The order of the High Court quashing the
charges framed against S.K. Khosla under Sections 467, 468
and 471 IPC read with Section 120B IPC in so far as the
 Investment Renewal Form dated 22.03.1993 and FD
 No.0756223 with Vyasa Bank, therefore, is clearly C
 unsustainable. We therefore interfere with the aforesaid part of
the order of the High Court in so far as the accused S.K. Khosla
 is concerned.

      23. Consequently and in the light of the foregoing
discussions we allow the Criminal Appeals arising out of           D
Special Leave Petition (Crl) Nos. 3546 and 910 of 2012 and
allow the Criminal appeal arising out of Special Leave petition
(Crl) No. 569 of 2012 in part and to the extent indicated above.

R.P.                                     Appeals disposed of.      E