NDLI: Sushil Suri Vs. C.b.i & Anr.

Content Provider	Supreme Court of India
e-ISSN	30484839
Language	English
Access Restriction	NDLI
Subject Keyword	Code of Criminal Procedure 1973
Content Type	Text
Resource Type	Law Judgement
Jurisdiction	India
Act(s) Referred	Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974)
Case(s) Referred	Referred Case 0 Referred Case 1 Referred Case 2 Referred Case 3 Referred Case 4 Referred Case 5 Referred Case 6 Referred Case 7 Referred Case 8 Referred Case 9 Referred Case 10
Case Type	Appeal
Court	Supreme Court of India
Disposal Nature	Appeal Dismissed
Headnote	Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973:s.482 - Inherent powers of the High Court- Scope and c ambit of - Held: Section 482 of Cr.P.C. envisages three circumstances under which the inherent jurisdiction may be exercised by the High Court, namely: (i) to give effect to an order under the Cr. P. C.; (ii) to prevent an abuse of the process of Court; and (iii) to otherwise secure the ends of justice -Although the power possessed by the High Court under the said provision is very wide but it is not unbridled - It has to be exercised sparingly, carefully and cautiously, ex debito justitiae to do real and substantial justice for which alone the Court exists - The inherent powers should not be exercised to stifle a legitimate prosecution - The High Court should E normally refrain from giving a prima facie decision in a case where all the facts are incomplete and hazy, more so, when the evidence has not been collected and produced before the Court and the issues involved, whether factual or legal, are of such magnitude that they cannot be seen in their true perspective without sufficient material. s. 482 - Criminal proceedings for forgery/fabrication of documents with the intention of defrauding the bank as well as the exchequer - Charge-sheet against appellant and other directors of a company for offences punishable under ss. 120B, 420, 409, 468 and 471 of /PC - Allegation that they forged documents/vouchers to show purchase of machinery, a pre-condition for release of instalments of loan, and thus not only duped the bank (PSB) but also defrauded the revenue by claiming depreciation on non-existent machinery and in the process cheated the public exchequer - Chief Metropolitan Magistrate took cognizance of the offences and summoned the appellant to stand trial - Appellant filed petition under s. 482 CrPC - High Court declined to quash the chargesheet - Justification of - Held: Justified - On a conspectus of the factual scenario, prima facie, the chargesheet does disclose commission of offences by the appellant under ss. 1208, 420, 409, 468 and 471 of IPC -More than sufficient circumstances exist suggesting the hatching of criminal conspiracy and forgery of several documents leading to commission of the aforementioned offences - Having regard to the modus operandi adopted by the accused, as projected in the chargesheet, it is clear thatit is not a fit case for exercise of jurisdiction by the High Court under s.482 Cr.P.C. as also by this Court under Article 142 of the Constitution - The accused had not only duped PSB, they had also availed of depreciation on the machinery, which was never purchased and used by them, causing loss to the exchequer, a serious economic offence against the society- Merely because the dues of the bank have been paid up, the accused-appellant cannot be exonerated from the criminal liability - Therefore, the chargesheet against him cannot be quashed - Trial Court directed to proceed with the case -Penal Code, 1860 - ss. 1208, 420, 409, 468 and 471.Penal Code, 1860 - ss. 120A and 1208 - Offence of "criminal conspiracy" - Essential ingredients of, discussed. Penal Code, 1860 - s. 463 - Forgery - Definition of - Held: Is very wide - Basic elements of forgery stated. Precedent - Ratio decidendi -:- Held: While applying ratio, the Court may not pick out a word or sentence from the judgement divorced from the context in which the said question arose for consideration - Even one additional or different fact may make a world of difference between the conclusions in two cases and blindly placing re!iance on a decision is never proper.
Judge	Hon'ble Mr. Justice D.K. Jain
Neutral Citation	2011 INSC 361
Petitioner	Sushil Suri
Respondent	C.b.i & Anr.
SCR	[2011] 8 S.C.R. 1
Judgement Date	2011-05-06
Case Number	1109

Sl.	Authority	Responsibilities	Communication Details
1	Ministry of Education (GoI), Department of Higher Education	Sanctioning Authority	https://www.education.gov.in/ict-initiatives
2	Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur	Host Institute of the Project: The host institute of the project is responsible for providing infrastructure support and hosting the project	https://www.iitkgp.ac.in
3	National Digital Library of India Office, Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur	The administrative and infrastructural headquarters of the project	Dr. B. Sutradhar bsutra@ndl.gov.in
4	Project PI / Joint PI	Principal Investigator and Joint Principal Investigators of the project	Dr. B. Sutradhar bsutra@ndl.gov.in Prof. Saswat Chakrabarti will be added soon
5	Website/Portal (Helpdesk)	Queries regarding NDLI and its services	support@ndl.gov.in
6	Contents and Copyright Issues	Queries related to content curation and copyright issues	content@ndl.gov.in
7	National Digital Library of India Club (NDLI Club)	Queries related to NDLI Club formation, support, user awareness program, seminar/symposium, collaboration, social media, promotion, and outreach	clubsupport@ndl.gov.in
8	Digital Preservation Centre (DPC)	Assistance with digitizing and archiving copyright-free printed books	dpc@ndl.gov.in
9	IDR Setup or Support	Queries related to establishment and support of Institutional Digital Repository (IDR) and IDR workshops	idr@ndl.gov.in

Sushil Suri Vs. C.b.i & Anr.

Please Log-in to view this content

Gopakumar B. Nair Vs. C.b.i & Anr.

Dinesh Dalmia Vs. C.b.i.

Bharat Parikh Vs. C.b.i. & Anr.

Sushil Murmu Vs. State of Jharkhand

Pyla Mutyalamma @ Satyavathi Vs. Pyla Suri Demudu & Anr.

G. Sagar Suri And. Anr Vs. State of U.p. and Ors.

Kishan Lal Vs. Dharmendra Bafna & Anr.

C.b.i. Vs. Karimullah Osan Khan

Shiv Kumar Vs. Hukam Chand and Anr.

Sushil Suri Vs. C.b.i & Anr.

Sushil Suri Vs. C.b.i & Anr.

Please Log-in to view this content

Similar Documents

Gopakumar B. Nair Vs. C.b.i & Anr.

Dinesh Dalmia Vs. C.b.i.

Bharat Parikh Vs. C.b.i. & Anr.

Sushil Murmu Vs. State of Jharkhand

Pyla Mutyalamma @ Satyavathi Vs. Pyla Suri Demudu & Anr.

G. Sagar Suri And. Anr Vs. State of U.p. and Ors.

Kishan Lal Vs. Dharmendra Bafna & Anr.

C.b.i. Vs. Karimullah Osan Khan

Shiv Kumar Vs. Hukam Chand and Anr.

Sushil Suri Vs. C.b.i & Anr.