Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.482 – Penal Code, 1860 – ss.420, 120B – In FIR, it was alleged that on 01.04.2013 the appellant received a phone call by a person impersonating himself as their client BMJ, to purchase 1 lakh shares of a company – After the purchase was executed, the said BMJ was called to confirm the purchase but he denied making any such call to the appellant for the abovesaid purchase – The charge-sheet was filed against one AJ, who is said to have made the alleged phone call – AJ is the main accused as per the charge sheet, though respondent no.2 is revealed as the main beneficiary – AJ is absconding – Respondent no.2 filed application before the Magistrate Court for release of the money withheld by the BSE – Application was dismissed – Revision filed against the said order was also dismissed – Petition filed u/s.482 before the High Court was allowed, thereby directing release of money – Correctness:
Held: It is a settled position of law that while exercising the inherent jurisdiction u/s.482 CrPC, the High Court is not supposed to conduct a mini trial – In considered opinion of this Court, the High Court has travelled beyond its inherent jurisdiction u/s.482 CrPC, by allowing the petition filed by respondent – The High Court ought not to have made any observations regarding the absence of any role played by respondent no. 2 in the whole transaction because investigation is yet to be completed – The charge-sheet itself states that the main accused (AJ) is absconding and the role of respondent no. 2 can only be ascertained once the main accused is arrested – Considering the same, this Court is of the opinion that the release of the sale value of the concerned shares in favour of respondent no. 2, may cause an irreparable loss to the appellant and vitiate the entire investigation – Moreover, in the present case it is pertinent to note that respondent no. 2 was the main beneficiary of the alleged fraudulent transaction – The chargesheet in the present case mentions that the role of respondent no. 2 cannot be ruled out – Both the Magistrate Court as well as the Revisional Court, have rightly held that the funds in question cannot be released at this stage – The impugned order passed by the High Court is set aside. [Paras 10, 11]
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Headnotes prepared by: Ankit Gyan. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.