- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
State Of U.P Through Cbi Spe, Lucknow v. R.K Srivastava And Another
Factual and Procedural Background
During June 1982, R.K. Srivastava (clerk-cum-godown keeper) and P.C. Saxena (accountant) of the State Bank of India, Agricultural Development Branch, Budaun, allegedly conspired with customers Sardar Sarwant Singh and his wife Smt. Rajwant Kaur, proprietors of M/s National Mill Store. According to the First Information Report (FIR), they caused three cheques—Rs 18,600, Rs 19,200 and Rs 16,800, totalling Rs 54,600—to be credited to the customers’ current accounts on the strength of “false” credit and debit entries, enabling immediate withdrawal of that amount.
The case (Crime Case No. 40 of 1983) was registered under Sections 120-B, 420, 468, 471 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 5(2) read with Section 5(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947. The Special Judge (Anti-Corruption) took cognisance. Invoking Section 482 CrPC, the Allahabad High Court quashed the proceedings, but only in favour of R.K. Srivastava, holding that the FIR did not disclose any offence.
The State of Uttar Pradesh and the State Bank of India obtained special-leave to appeal to the Supreme Court, challenging the High Court’s decision.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether, when taken at face value, the allegations in the FIR constituted the offences of criminal conspiracy, cheating, forgery, using forged documents, or criminal misconduct under the Prevention of Corruption Act.
- Whether the High Court was justified, under Section 482 CrPC, in quashing criminal proceedings against R.K. Srivastava on the ground that the FIR disclosed no cognisable offence—and, if so, whether such relief should also extend to the remaining accused.
Arguments of the Parties
The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the parties' legal arguments.
Table of Precedents Cited
No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The Supreme Court applied the settled test that criminal proceedings must be quashed where, even if the FIR is accepted in its entirety, it fails to disclose any offence.
- The FIR alleged “false” credit entries and vouchers but supplied no particulars of the supposed falsity or any forged document.
- The cheques were in fact sent for clearance and subsequently honoured; the Bank ultimately received the funds. Hence, there was no wrongful loss to the Bank nor wrongful gain to the accused—an essential element of cheating or criminal misconduct.
- Because necessary accounting entries had to be made once withdrawals were allowed, characterising those entries as “false” was unfounded.
- An FIR devoid of a “definite accusation” amounted to an abuse of the court’s process; continuing prosecution would therefore be impermissible.
- As the allegations were identical for all accused, limiting relief to one accused (Srivastava) was illogical; consistency demanded quashing the proceedings against Saxena and Sarwant Singh as well.
Holding and Implications
Holding: The Supreme Court affirmed the High Court’s order quashing proceedings against R.K. Srivastava and extended the quashing to co-accused P.C. Saxena and Sardar Sarwant Singh. Consequently, the entire Criminal Case No. 40 of 1983 stands quashed against all remaining accused; the appeals were disposed of accordingly.
Implications: The judgment reiterates that criminal prosecution cannot be sustained where the FIR, even if uncontroverted, does not spell out the ingredients of a cognisable offence. The decision underscores judicial willingness to use Section 482 CrPC to curb abuse of process but sets no new substantive precedent beyond reaffirming this settled principle.
M.M Dutt, J.— These two appeals by special leave, one preferred by the State of U.P and the other by State Bank of India, are directed against the judgment of the Allahabad High Court whereby the High Court has quashed the criminal proceedings being Crime Case No. 40 of 1983 in the Court of Special Judge, Anti-Corruption, only as against the respondent R.K Srivastava. In quashing the proceedings in the exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC, the High Court took the view that allegations made in the first information report (FIR) did not constitute any offence. In order to appreciate the view of the High Court, it is necessary to refer to the FIR which reads as follows:
“An information has been received that Shri P.C Saxena and Shri Ram Kumar Srivastava while posted and functioning as Accountant and Clerk-cum-Godown Keeper in State Bank of India, Agriculture Development Branch, Budaun, respectively entered into a criminal conspiracy with Shri Sarwant Singh and his wife Smt Rajwant Kaur, Props. of M/s National Mill Store, Budaun, during the month of June 1982 to cheat State Bank of India, Budaun, and in pursuance of the said criminal conspiracy an amount of Rs 54,600 was withdrawn on the basis of false credit entry made in the books of accounts of the Bank and connected credit and debit vouchers were also prepared and passed by the accused employees of the Bank and payment were made to the accused persons, namely, Shri Sarwant Singh and Smt Rajwant Kaur who tendered Cheque No. 348459 dated 2-5-1982 for Rs 18,600, Cheque No. 348482 for Rs 19,200 (dated 2-6-1982) and Cheque No. 502206 dated 2-6-1982 for Rs 16,800 = Rs 54,600.
The above facts constitute offence punishable under Sections 120-B, 420, 468, 471 IPC and 5(2) read with Section 5(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947.
A regular case is therefore registered and its investigation is entrusted to Shri V.P Arya, Inspector of this establishment.”
2. According to the FIR, as against three cheques of the aggregate amount of Rs 54,600, presumably of three different banks, a credit entry was made in the accounts of M/s National Mill Stores Co., Budaun, and M/s New Manufacturing Co., Budaun, and their partners, Sardar Sarwant Singh and his wife Smt Rajwant Kaur, in State Bank of India and the said sum of Rs 54,600 was allowed to be withdrawn by them by the respondent and the accused P.C Saxena.
3. The allegations in the FIR appear to be vague and although it is alleged that the respondent and the accused P.C Saxena made false credit entries in the books of accounts of the Bank and connected credit and debit vouchers were also prepared and passed by them, no particulars of the same have been given. It appears from the charge-sheet that the said Shri Sarwant Singh and his wife Smt Rajwant Kaur and their firms, namely, M/s National Mill Stores Co., Budaun, and M/s New Manufacturing Co., Budaun, have current accounts in State Bank of India, Budaun. After the said three cheques amounting to Rs 54,600 were tendered, the respondent and the accused P.C Saxena sent the said cheques for clearance and allowed the said Shri Sarwant Singh and his wife Smt Rajwant Kaur to withdraw the sum of Rs 54,600 from their current account.
4. It is now a well-settled principle of law that if the allegations made in the FIR are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not constitute an offence, the criminal proceedings instituted on the basis of such FIR should be quashed. In the instant case, on the basis of the said FIR the respondent and the said P.C Saxena and Shri Sarwant Singh were charged under Sections 120-B, 420, 468 and 471 IPC and Section 5(2) read with Section 5(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947. According to the appellant, as no prima facie case was made out against Smt Rajwant Kaur, wife of Shri Sarwant Singh, she has been dropped from the array of the accused persons.
5. The question is whether the facts disclosed in the FIR constitute the offences with which the accused have been charged. It is manifestly clear from the allegations in the FIR that the respondent or the other accused had no intention whatsoever to make any wrongful gain or to make any wrongful loss to the Bank. They had accepted the said three cheques amounting to Rs 54,600 and sent the same for clearance after debiting the LOC account. The said cheques have been encashed and the money was received by State Bank of India. It may be that there was some delay in crediting the LOC account or that the money against the three cheques were credited in the accounts of the said Shri Sarwant Singh and his wife, but the allegations made either in the FIR or in the charge-sheet do not show that the respondent and the said P.C Saxena had acted dishonestly, that is to say, acted with a deliberate intention to cause wrongful gain or wrongful loss. In our opinion, the High Court has rightly held that the allegations made in the FIR do not constitute any offence of cheating, nor do they constitute any offence of forgery. It is true that it has been alleged that the said sum of Rs 54,600 was withdrawn on the basis of false credit entries made in the books of accounts of the Bank and connected credit and debit vouchers were also prepared and passed by the respondent and the other accused. When the said sum of Rs 54,600 had been allowed to be withdrawn by the said Shri Sarwant Singh and his wife, necessary entries had to be made in the books of accounts, but it is not understandable how these entries can be characterised as false entries. No document has been referred to in the FIR as the outcome of forgery.
6. The High Court has rightly held that as the criminal proceedings have been started against the respondent on the basis of an FIR which does not contain any definite accusation, it amounts to an abuse of process of the court and, as such, is liable to be quashed. We entirely agree with the view expressed by the High Court.
7. The High Court has quashed the proceedings only as against Respondent 1, R.K Srivastava. In our opinion, when the allegations in the FIR are the same against all the accused persons, the entire proceedings as against all the accused persons including the said P.C Saxena and the said Shri Sarwant Singh should be quashed.
8. Accordingly, while we uphold the judgment of the High Court, we quash the entire criminal proceedings being Crime Case No. 40 of 1983 also as against the accused P.C Saxena and Shri Sarwant Singh. The appeals are disposed of as above.
Alert