ASHIM KUMAR ROY versus BIPINBHAI VADILAL MEHTA AND ORS.

ASHIM KUMAR ROY versus BIPINBHAI VADILAL MEHTA AND ORS.

As the respondents were not directors or in control of the company on the relevant dates, and the complaint itself showed their involvement arose only after the alleged transaction, the necessary ingredients of offences under Sections 409 and 120-B IPC were not satisfied. It would be manifestly unjust to let the proceedings continue. The High Court correctly exercised inherent jurisdiction to quash the complaint.

Parties
Appellant/complainant: Ashim Kumar Roy; Respondent No. 1: Bipinbhai Vadilal Mehta; Respondent No. 2: Priyambhai Bipinbhai Mehta; Respondent (intervener): State of Gujarat
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
14 October 1997
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal From Order of Gujarat High Court Quashing Complaint and Charges
Outcome
Appeals dismissed
Legal Topics
Inherent Jurisdiction of High Court, Quashing of Criminal Proceedings, Section 482 Cr PC, Criminal Breach of Trust, Criminal Conspiracy
Criminal Law Procedure Inherent Jurisdiction of High Court Quashing of Criminal Proceedings Section 482 Cr PC Criminal Breach of Trust Criminal Conspiracy

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ashim Kumar Roy

Appellant/complainant

Bipinbhai Vadilal Mehta

Respondent No. 1

Priyambhai Bipinbhai Mehta

Respondent No. 2

State of Gujarat

Respondent (intervener)

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal From Order of Gujarat High Court Quashing Complaint and Charges

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether allegations in complaint made out offences under Sections 409 and 120-B IPC against respondents who were not directors at the relevant time
  2. 2 Whether High Court rightly exercised its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC to quash proceedings

Ratio Decidendi

As the respondents were not directors or in control of the company on the relevant dates, and the complaint itself showed their involvement arose only after the alleged transaction, the necessary ingredients of offences under Sections 409 and 120-B IPC were not satisfied. It would be manifestly unjust to let the proceedings continue. The High Court correctly exercised inherent jurisdiction to quash the complaint.

Court Disposition

Appeals dismissed

Orders

  • Complaints and charges against Respondents No. 1 and 2 are quashed
  • No case made out under Sections 409 or 120-B IPC against the respondents