He Was Not The Authorized Officer At The Relevant Time: Supreme Court Quashes Cheating Case Agaisnt HDFC Bank Manager
The Appeals before the Supreme Court were preferred by the accused appellant seeking quashing of the chargesheet and consequential criminal proceedings registered against him.
Justice Vikram Nath, Justice Sandeep Mehta, Supreme Court
The Supreme Court has quashed a case of cheating against a man working as a Manager at HDFC Bank after finding that the sale certificate was issued by a predecessor employee and the accused had no role to play in the transaction leading to the FIR as he was not an authorized officer at the time of the incident.
The Appeals before the Apex Court were preferred by the accused-appellant against the common judgment passed by the Madras High Court dismissing the appellant’s petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 to quash the chargesheet and consequential proceedings arising out of a criminal case.
The Division Bench comprising Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta held, “Therefore, it becomes clear as day that the appellant had no role to play in the transaction leading to the FIR as he was not a signatory to the sale certificate. Since the appellant was neither the authorized officer at the relevant time nor responsible for the auction process or issuance of the sale certificate, the allegations against him are baseless and do not attract criminal liability”, it held.
AOR Rajendra Sahu represented the Appellant while Senior Additional Advocate General V. Krishnamurthy represented the Respondent.
Factual Background
The case of the prosecution was that the first accused was working as a Branch Manager in HDFC Limited at Palayankottai Branch and the second accused, i.e. the appellant herein, was working as a Manager in the Head Office of HDFC Limited at Thiruvananthapuram when the alleged offence was committed. In 2004, one Mr. A. Kannan had borrowed a loan from HDFC Limited by mortgaging his immovable property and the superstructure built up therein. Since the said borrower had defaulted in repaying the loan amount, HDFC Ltd. initiated proceedings under the provisions of the SARFAESI Act and an auction notice for the above-mentioned property was issued.
The second respondent i.e. the de facto complainant, participated in the public auction and purchased the property for a sum of Rs 7,25,000. However, it was alleged that at the time of the registration of the said sale certificate, he came to know that the property in question was already acquired by the Tamil Nadu Housing Board. A consumer complaint was filed by him against the Chairman, Managing Director and Senior Manager of HDFC Ltd. Accordingly, FIR came to be registered under Sections 197, 417, 418, 467, 468 and 420 of the IPC wherein the Branch Manager, Tirunelveli was arrayed as the first accused and the appellant herein was arrayed as the second accused.
It was alleged in the FIR that the accused persons, by suppressing the acquisition of the property by the Tamil Nadu Housing Board, sold the property to the de facto complainant in the public auction and, thereby, cheated her. After completion of the investigation, the Judicial Magistrate took cognizance of the final report. Aggrieved by the filing of a chargesheet, the appellant preferred an application under Section 482 of CrPC seeking quashing of the criminal proceedings against him, but the same was dismissed. Aggrieved thereby, the appellant approached the Apex Court.
Reasoning
The Bench noticed that the sale certificate was issued by the appellant’s predecessor and, at the relevant time, the appellant was not the authorised officer empowered to issue the certificate. From the initiation of the auction process to the issuance of the sale certificate, no direct involvement of the appellant could be seen as he was not the authorized officer during the said period and assumed the office of Manager only in November 2014.
“The continuation of the instant criminal proceedings against the appellant shall lead to abuse of process of law, cause nothing but miscarriage of justice and inordinately harass the appellant who has been implicated without due cause”, the Bench said.
Thus, allowing the appeals and setting aside the impugned order, the Bench quashed the criminal proceedings against the appellant.
Cause Title: Sivakumar v. The Inspector of Police & Anr. (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 558)
Appearance:
Appellant: AOR Rajendra Sahu
Respondent: Senior Additional Advocate General V.Krishnamurthy, AOR Sabarish Subramanian, Advocates Vishnu Unnikrishnan, Azka Sheikh Kalia, Jahnavi Taneja, Veshal Tyagi, Danish Saifi