STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH versus YOGENDRA SINGH JADON & ANR.
[2020] 5 S.C.R. 70, Supreme Court of India, 2020
Outcome: Appeal(s) allowed (Granted)
Segment: Facts
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
70
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2020] 5 S.C.R.
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
v.
YOGENDRA SINGH JADON & ANR.
(Criminal Appeal No. 175 of 2020)
JANUARY 31, 2020
[L. NAGESWARA RAO AND HEMANT GUPTA, JJ.]
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973:
s. 482  – Charge-sheet u/s. 420 r/w. 120-B IPC – Against
father of the respondents  – Alleging inter alia that the accused had
granted cash credit to the respondents (his sons) without proper
documents, when he was President of the Bank  – High Court
quashed the criminal proceedings qua the respondents holding that
no criminal case made out against them – Appeal to Supreme Court
– Held: The facts of the case prima facie disclose an offence u/ss.
420 and 120-B IPC against the respondents – High Court was not
right in quashing the charges against the respondents.
s. 482 – Jurisdiction under – Scope of – Held: Power u/s.
482 cannot be exercised where the allegations are required to be
proved in the Court of law.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD:  The High Court examined the entire issue as to
whether the offence under Sections 420 and 120-B IPC is made
out or not at pre-trial stage.  The respondents are beneficiary
of the grant of cash credit limit when their father was the
President of the Bank.  The power under Section 482 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 cannot be exercised where
the allegations are required to be proved in court of law.  The
manner in which loan was advanced without any proper
documents and the fact that the
respondents are beneficiary of
benevolence of their father prima facie disclose an offence under
Sections 420 and 120-B IPC. Other officials of the Bank have
been charge-sheeted for an offence under Sections 13(1)(d) and
13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.  The charge
under Section 420 IPC is not an isolated offence but it has to
be read along with the offences under the Act to which the
   [2020] 5 S.C.R. 70
70
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
71
respondents may be liable with the aid of Section 120-B of IPC.
Therefore, the order of the High Court quashing the charges
against the respondents is not sustainable in law. [Para 5 and 6]
[73-C-F]
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal
No. 175 of 2020.
From the Judgment and Order dated 04.05.2016 of the High
Court of Madhya Pradesh, Bench at Indore in Criminal Revision No.
260 of 2014.
Dhruv Tamta, Ms. Tanvi Bhatnagar, Harsh Parashar, Advs. for
the Appellant.
Arvind Varma, Sr. Adv., Ms. Saloni Tangri, Ms. Jasleen Chahal,
Farrukh Rasheed, Advs. for the Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
HEMANT GUPTA, J.
1. The State is aggrievedagainst an order passed by the High
Court of Madhya Pradesh on 2nd May, 2016 whereby the proceedings
against the respondents, both sons of late Manohar Singh Jadon, for
an offence under Sections 420, 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, 18601
were quashed.
2. A charge sheet for the offences under Sections 420, 406, 409,
120B IPC and 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act,
19882 was filed on 9th July, 2008 consequent to registration of FIR
No. 3 of 2007 on 23rd June, 2007. The allegation was that Manohar
Singh Jadon, deceased father of the respondents in connivance with
other employees of District Cooperative Kendriya Bank Maryadit,
Shajapur3 committed financial irregularities on the basis of forged
documents by misusing his post and by providing fake loan to the
relatives.  Manohar Singh
Jadon was President of the Bank from 5th
February, 1997 to 26th March, 2002 and from 27th March, 2002 to 7th
May, 2004.  Harshvardhan Singh Jadon (accused-respondent No. 2) is
the proprietor of M/s. Harshvardhan & Brothers whereas Yogendra
1 for short, ‘IPC’
2 for short, ‘Act’
3 for short, ‘Bank’
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH v. YOGENDRA SINGH JADON
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
72
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2020] 5 S.C.R.
Singh (accused-respondent No. 1) is the proprietor of M/s. Sarohar
Trading Company.  Ghanshyam Sharma, General Manager, Ramanlal
Acharya, Manager, Ram Singh Yadav, General Manager were also
arrayed as accused.  It was alleged that accused Harshvardhan Singh
Jadon submitted an application on 2nd November, 2000 for grant of cash
credit limit of Rs.25 lakhs and that the cash credit limit was sanctioned
without following the due procedure.  It was also alleged that mortgage
deed was not registered nor signature of original loanee was found on
the mortgage paper.  It is also pointed out that an amount of
Rs.59,88,327/- was balance on 1st December, 2001 even after depositing
Rs.25 lakhs and that the President has done the renewal of cash credit
limit at his own level and its confirmation was got done later on from
the loan Sub-Committee, while the case was of the son of the President
alone.  In respect of Yogendra Singh, again the allegation is that cash
credit limit of Rs.25 lakhs was sanctioned on the basis of his application
dated 30th July, 2001 without completing any of the procedural
requirements and without mortgage of any of the property.  Smt. Saroj
Singh mortgaged the land but without any valuation.  The surety of
Ishwar Singh was taken.  The same person mortgaged land as in the
case of Harshvardhan.  Similar is the assertion in respect of registration
of mortgage.  It was also alleged that a sum of Rs.25,65,894/-
is the
balance as on 31st March, 2002 even after withdrawal beyond the
approved credit limit of Rs.25 lakhs.
3. The Special Judge passed an order of framing of charges
against Harshvardhan Singh Jadon and Yogendra Singh Jadon apart
from other accused on 24th February, 2014.  Such order was challenged
by the respondents by way of a criminal revision.
4. The High Court in the Revision Petition found that the offences
under Sections 420 and 120-B IPC are not made out against the
respondents.  The Court held that there is no assertion that the cash
credit facility obtained with a knowledge that they will not repay the
loan amount.  The Court held as under:
“12.  It may be that the Officers of the Bank, because of the
fact that father of the applicants was President of the Bank, had
acted in disregard of the relevant rules and regulations in that
behalf of confer benefit upon the applicants, but that will give
rise to liability against the officers of the bank who failed to
discharge their duties in accordance with prescribed norms and
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
73
regulations.  However, that may not be a ground to proceed
against a person who has been granted cash credit facility.
xx
xx
xx
14. In the instant case, the uncontroverted allegations taken in
their entirety do not prima facie establish that the applicants
deceived the Bank Authorities or fraudulently or dishonestly
induced them to sanction cash credit facility.  Thus, the basic
ingredient to constitute the offence of 420 of IPC is totally missing
in the chargesheet.”
5. We find that the High Court has examined the entire issue as
to whether the offence under Sections 420 and 120-B is made out or
not at pre trial stage.  The respondents are beneficiary of the grant of
cash credit limit when their father was the President of the Bank.  The
power under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
cannot be exercised where the allegations are required to be proved in
court of law.  The manner in which loan was advanced without any
proper documents and the fact that the respondents are beneficiary of
benevolence of their father prima facie disclose an offence under
Sections 420 and 120-B IPC.  It may be stated that other officials of
the Bank have been charge sheeted for an offence under Sections
13(1)(d) and 13(2) of the Act.  The charge under Section 420 IPC is
not an isolated offence but it has to be read along with the offences
under the Act to which the respondents may be liable with the aid of
Section 120-B of IPC.
6. Consequently, we find that
the order of the High Court quashing
the charges against the respondents is not sustainable in law and the
same is set aside. The appeal is allowed. It shall be open to the
respondents to take such other action as may be available to them in
accordance with law.
Kalpana K. Tripathy
Appeal allowed.
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH v. YOGENDRA SINGH JADON
[HEMANT GUPTA, J.]