SC Quashes FIR Against Bank Manager Not Involved in Land Acquisition Suppression
- Blog|News|FEMA & Banking|
- 2 Min Read
- By Taxmann
- |
- Last Updated on 29 April, 2025
Latest from Taxmann
Case Details: Sivakumar vs. Inspector of Police [2025] 173 taxmann.com 874 (SC)
Judiciary and Counsel Details
- Vikaram Nath & Sandeep Mehta, JJ.
Facts of the Case
In the instant case, the complainant participated in a public auction of mortgaged property and purchased it. Consequently, the Sale certificate was handed over to the complainant. However, when the complainant approached the Sub-Registrar to register the sale certificate, she learned that the property in question had already been acquired by the Tamil Nadu Housing Board.
Later, a complaint was filed under section 190 of Cr.P.C., and an FIR was registered under sections 197, 417, 418, 467, 468, and 420 of IPC against the Branch Manager and the appellant, the Manager at the Head Office. The FIR alleged that the accused persons, by suppressing the acquisition of property by the Tamil Nadu Housing Board, sold property to the complainant in the public auction and, thereby, cheated her.
The appellant contended that he was appointed as Manager at the Head Office of HDFC Bank on 3-11-2014, whereas the auction process and issuance of the sale certificate took place in 2012. At the relevant time, he was only serving as an Assistant Manager, and it was only the Manager who was authorized to initiate proceedings under the SARFAESI Act.
Supreme Court Held
The Supreme Court observed that since appellant was neither authorized officer at relevant time nor responsible for auction process or issuance of sale certificate, allegations against him were baseless and did not attract criminal liability and continuation of instant criminal proceedings against appellant would lead to abuse of process of law, cause nothing but miscarriage of justice and inordinately harass appellant who had been implicated without due cause.
Therefore, the Supreme Court held that the criminal proceedings against the appellant were to be quashed.
List of Cases Reviewed
- Order passed by High Court of Madras in Crl. O.P. (MD) 21417 of 2016 and Crl. O.P. (MD) No. 10979 of 2016, dated 12-1-2023 [Para 19] – set aside
Disclaimer: The content/information published on the website is only for general information of the user and shall not be construed as legal advice. While the Taxmann has exercised reasonable efforts to ensure the veracity of information/content published, Taxmann shall be under no liability in any manner whatsoever for incorrect information, if any.
Taxmann Publications has a dedicated in-house Research & Editorial Team. This team consists of a team of Chartered Accountants, Company Secretaries, and Lawyers. This team works under the guidance and supervision of editor-in-chief Mr Rakesh Bhargava.
The Research and Editorial Team is responsible for developing reliable and accurate content for the readers. The team follows the six-sigma approach to achieve the benchmark of zero error in its publications and research platforms. The team ensures that the following publication guidelines are thoroughly followed while developing the content:
- The statutory material is obtained only from the authorized and reliable sources
- All the latest developments in the judicial and legislative fields are covered
- Prepare the analytical write-ups on current, controversial, and important issues to help the readers to understand the concept and its implications
- Every content published by Taxmann is complete, accurate and lucid
- All evidence-based statements are supported with proper reference to Section, Circular No., Notification No. or citations
- The golden rules of grammar, style and consistency are thoroughly followed
- Font and size that’s easy to read and remain consistent across all imprint and digital publications are applied
Everything on Tax and Corporate Laws of India
To subscribe to our weekly newsletter please log in/register on Taxmann.com
CA | CS | CMA
