SHALIGRAM PARITA KANHAIYALAL PARITA Vs. CENTRAL BUREAU INVESTINGATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rule. Heard forthwith by consent of parties. Heard Mr. A. C. Dharmadhikari, learned counsel for applicant and Mr. Shyam Ahirkar, learned Assistant public Prosecutor for respondent-State.

(2.) Applicant is accused No. 2 along with one Jagdishprasad Pannalal facing prosecution for the offences punishable under sections 120-B, 409 of the Indian Penal Code read with Sections 13 (l) (c) and 13 (1) (d) read with Section 13 (2) of the Prevention of corruption Act, 1988 in Special Case No. 59 of 2003 before the Judge, Special Court for CB1 at Nagpur.

(3.) In support of his submissions, Mr. Dharmadhikari relied upon State of J. and K. Vs. Romesh Chander and Ors., 1997 1 SCC 90, to urge that charge-sheet constitutes prima facie evidence constituting the offence for proceeding further in the matter. In the said case, the Trial Court and the High Court had discharged the accused. The Apex Court while remanding the matter to the High Court, held that the Court has necessarily to look into the relevant law and the allegations made in the charge-sheet and then consider whether any offence has been committed so as to frame charges for the trial; before the Court may discharge the accused. Mr. Dharmadhikari also relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in m/s. Indian Oil Corporation Vs. M/s. NEPC india Limited and Ors., 2006 AIR(SC) 2780, to urge that when remedy lies in civil law. to curb unnecessary harassment to innocent party like the applicant, the criminal prosecution initiated against the applicant be quashed and set aside. My attention was invited to observations of the Apex Court made in paragraph 10 of the said judgment. It is observed by the Apex Court that there is growing tendency in business circles to convert purely civil disputes into criminal cases and such a tendency is seen in several family disputes also, leading to irretrievable break down of marriages/families.