Supreme Court – Daily Orders
Pushkar Jamnerkar vs The State Of Telangana on 26 March, 2025
Author: Rajesh Bindal
Bench: Rajesh Bindal
1
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1704 /2025
[@ SLP (CRL.) NO.2410/2024]
PUSHKAR JAMNERKAR Appellant(s)
VERSUS
THE STATE OF TELANGANA & ORS. Respondent(s)
O R D E R
Leave granted.
Comity of Courts is a principle well recognized
throughout the world. The said principle has not only
been duly recognized, but also reiterated by this
Court time and again.
This is a case where the aforesaid principle has
not only been violated, but an attempt has also been
made by respondent No.2 to get over the arbitral
award that was passed by a jurisdictional forum in
London after affording an adequate opportunity of
hearing to the parties concerned, by way of
initiating criminal proceedings, after exhausting few
other options.
The subject matter of the criminal complaint is
with respect to a manuscript dated 17.05.2013 which
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
ASHA SUNDRIYAL
Date: 2025.04.01
17:30:59 IST
Reason:
led to an agreement inter se the parties. The
arbitral proceedings had been initiated at the seat
2
of arbitration in London. Arguments had been heard
preceded by the examination of the witnesses. On the
admissibility, relevancy and proof pertaining to the
document dated 17.05.2013, the Arbitral Tribunal
heard the parties at length. Specific findings have
been given by the Arbitral Tribunal on that aspect.
The Arbitral Tribunal had noted that there was no
allegation by the respondent No. 2 that the appellant
had put markings on the aforesaid manuscript
dishonestly.
Accordingly, an arbitral award was passed in
favour of the appellants. In fact, three awards have
been passed at different stages. The respondent No.2
made an abortive attempt by filing a claim petition
before the Commercial Court at Dubai and an anti-suit
injunction application was also filed at London. We
have been informed that the claim petition filed at
Dubai was withdrawn subsequently.
To give effect to the arbitral award passed in
the favour of respondent No.3, an Enforcement
Petition being OMP (EFA) (COMM) 4/2017 was filed
before the High Court of Delhi and an interim order
of injunction had been obtained against the
respondent No.2 prohibiting it from transferring,
alienating or encumbering any of its assets. Few days
thereafter, a criminal complaint bearing C.C. No. 581
of 2017 had been filed invoking Section 200 of the
3
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter
referred to as ‘the Code’), notwithstanding the fact
that the appellant is residing outside Hyderabad and
without even complying with Section 202 of the Code,
for the offences punishable under Sections 465, 468,
471 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, on the
file of the XIV Additional Chief Metropolitan
Magistrate at Hyderabad. Alleging that the said
initiation of the criminal complaint is a clear abuse
of the process of law, the appellant invoked Section
482 of the Code to quash the criminal complaint and
proceedings arising out of C.C. No. 581 of 2017.
Vide the impugned judgment, the petition under
Section 482 of the Code was dismissed by the High
Court holding that the contentions raised by the
appellant will have to be decided at the time of
trial.
Based on the aforesaid facts, the learned senior
counsel appearing for the appellant and the
respondent No.3 submitted that the facts, as noted by
this Court, speak for themselves. This is nothing
but a clear attempt to use the judicial process to
circumvent the arbitral award passed by a competent
forum. The arbitral award has become final inter-se
the parties and the proceedings are pending at
present before the Bombay High Court for its
enforcement. Additionally, an application has also
4
been moved at the instance of the respondent No.2
seeking to stay the enforcement proceedings pending
before the Bombay High Court, in view of the pendency
of the present appeal before us. In such view of the
matter, it is prayed that appropriate orders will
have to be passed by setting aside the criminal
proceedings initiated against the appellant and
appropriate directions will have to be issued to the
Bombay High Court to expedite the hearing in the
pending enforcement proceedings.
Shri Avinash Desai, learned counsel appearing
for the respondent No.2 submitted that the scope of
arbitration proceedings is different from the
complaint given and the criminal proceedings arising
therefrom. Upon a perusal of the criminal complaint,
it discloses a cognizable offence.
It is further submitted that it is not in
dispute that the markings have been made in the
manuscript dated 17.05.2013. As rightly held by the
High Court, it is a matter for evidence that has to
be considered by the jurisdictional Magistrate.
Hence, there is no reason for interference with the
impugned order.
We have considered the submissions made by the
parties.
As aforestated, the arbitral award has become final
inter-se the parties. It is the duty of the Court not
5
only to accept the arbitral award passed by a forum
having jurisdiction outside the country, but also to
see to it that it is given effect to, unless law so
prohibits.
At this juncture, we have no hesitation in
reiterating that this is nothing but an abortive
attempt being made by the respondent No.2 to ensure
that the arbitral award is not given effect to. In
other words, this is nothing but an abuse of the
process of law. The very same document has been
considered threadbare by the Arbitral Tribunal at
London. On the said document, evidence has been led
by both the sides. As against the evidence lead by
respondent No.2, the evidence lead on behalf of the
appellant and the respondent No.3 found favour with
the Arbitral Tribunal.
By way of a criminal proceeding, the arbitral
award passed cannot be interdicted or set aside.
Considering the facts of the case, we have no
hesitation in holding that the very criminal
complaint at the instance of respondent No.2 is
itself an abuse of the process of law and its
continuance would cause further injustice to both the
appellant and the respondent No.3.
In such view of the matter, the order passed by
the High Court declining to exercise its jurisdiction
by invoking Section 482 of the Code stands set aside
6
and consequently, the criminal complaint and criminal
proceedings arising out of CC No.581 of 2017 pending
before the XIV Additional Chief Metropolitan
Magistrate, Hyderabad stand quashed.
We request the High Court to consider expediting
the hearing of the petition filed for the enforcement
of the arbitral award at the instance of the
respondent No.3.
The appeal stands allowed accordingly.
Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand
disposed of.
……………………………….J.
[M.M. SUNDRESH]
……………………………….J.
[RAJESH BINDAL]
NEW DELHI;
MARCH 26, 2025.
7
ITEM NO.18 COURT NO.8 SECTION II
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No(s). 2410/2024
[Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 30-01-2024
in CRP No. 8530/2019 passed by the High Court for The State of
Telangana at Hyderabad]
PUSHKAR JAMNERKAR Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
THE STATE OF TELANGANA & ORS. Respondent(s)
IA No. 244325/2024 – APPROPRIATE ORDERS/DIRECTIONS
IA No. 68034/2024 – PERMISSION TO FILE ADDITIONAL
DOCUMENTS/FACTS/ANNEXURES
Date : 26-03-2025 This matter was called on for hearing today.
CORAM :
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. SUNDRESH
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDALFor Petitioner(s) Mr. Mukul Rohatgi, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Sidharth Luthra, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Omar Ahmad, Adv.
Mr. Ishan Gaur, Adv.
Mr. Vikram Shah, Adv.
Mr. Ritik Kumar Rath, Adv.
Mr. Tuhin Dey, Adv.
Ms. Kritika Khurana, Adv.
Ms. Ritika Gambhir Kohli, AORFor Respondent(s) Ms. Devina Sehgal, AOR
Mr. S Uday Bhanu, Adv.
Mr. Avinash Desai, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Divyam Agarwal, Adv.
Mr. Ritesh Kumar, AORMr. Sajan Poovayya, Sr. Adv.
Mrs. Sanjanthi Sajan Poovayya, Adv.
Mrs. Raksha Agarwal, Adv.
Mr. Prastut Mahesh Dalvi, Adv.
Ms. Vidhi Pankaj Thaker, AOR
8UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
O R D E RLeave granted.
The appeal stands allowed in terms of the signed
order.
Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand
disposed of.
(ASHA SUNDRIYAL) (POONAM VAID) DEPUTY REGISTRAR ASSISTANT REGISTRAR
[Signed order is placed on the file]
[ad_1]
Source link