Karnataka High Court
Dr. Chandrashekhar. N vs The Directorate Of Enforcement And … on 30 July, 2025
Author: M.Nagaprasanna
Bench: M.Nagaprasanna
1
Reserved on : 02.07.2025
Pronounced on : 30.07.2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF JULY, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M. NAGAPRASANNA
CRIMINAL PETITION No.11896 OF 2024
BETWEEN:
DR. CHANDRASHEKHAR N.,
S/O LATE S.NARASINGA RAO
AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS
RESIDINGA AT NO. 143
SHREE GURUKRUPA, 7TH MAIN
3RD STAGE, GOKULAM DOCTORS
CORNER, MYSORE
KARNATAKA - 570 002.
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI SANDESH J. CHOUTA, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR
SRI TEJASVI K. V., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1 . THE DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT
AND OTHERS, REPRESENTED BY
ASSISTANT DIRECTOR
OFFICE AT 3RD FLOOR, 'B' BLOCK
BMTC, TTMC, SHANTHINAGAR
K.H.ROAD, BENGALURU
KARNATAKA - 560 027.
2 . MICHAEL FLOYD ESHWER
2
S/O LATE B.S.ESHWER
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS
RESIDING AT NO. 8/1N6/1
POST BOX NO. 44
BISAL MANTI, HYDER ALI ROAD
NAZARABAD MOHALLA MYSORE
KARNATAKA - 570 019.
3 . V.DHARMA GOPAL
S/O LATE S.VENKATARAMANAPPA
AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS
RESIDING AT 720, WARD NO. 29
CHAMARAJPET, CHIKKABALLAPUR
KARNATAKA - 562 101.
4 . DERRICK JOSEPH REGO
S/O LATE ARISTIDES LANCELOT REGO
AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS
RESIDING AT NO. 902/903
ZULFAS MASTERPIECE
OPPOSTIE CASCIA HIGH SCHOOL
MARNAMIKATTE, NEAR
HINDU PRINTING PRESS
MANGALURU, KARNATAKA - 575 002.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI UNNIKRISHNAN M., ADVOCATE FOR R1)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF
CR.P.C., PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS
ALONG WITH THE COMPLAINT INITIATED AGAINST THE
PETITIONER IN CC NO. 846/2021 (P.C.R. NO. 39/2021) BASED ON
THE ECIR NO. BGZO/01/2019 DATED 07/06/2019 PENDING
BEFORE THE XXXII ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSION JUDGE AND
SPL. JUDGE FOR PMLA CASES AT BENGALURU FOR THE OFFENCES
P/U/S/ 3, 4 AND 8(5) OF THE PMLA ACT, 2002 FILED BY R1 HEREIN
AT ANNX-A AND B AND ORDER OF COGNIZANCE DATED
12/07/2021 ANN-B BY THE HONBLE XXXII ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND
3
SESSION JUDGE AND SPL. JUDGE FOR PMLA CASES AT
BENGALURU.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND
RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 02.07.2025, COMING ON FOR
PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA
CAV ORDER
Heard Sri.Sandesh J Chouta, learned Senior Counsel for
Sri.Tejasvi K.V., learned counsel appearing for the petitioner,
Sri.Unnikrishnan M, learned counsel appearing for the respondent
No.1.
2. Facts in brief germane are as follows:
(a) The petitioner is accused No.4 in Crime No.46/2013. To
consider the case of the petitioner, it is necessary to travel to the
backdrop of drawing the petitioner into the web of crime. The
backdrop relates to accused Nos.1, 2 and 3.
4
(b) The accused No.1 claims to be a licensed professional
Class-I horse trainer since 1991. The avocation of the accused
No.1 is to train horses and run them at races conducted at various
places like Mumbai, Chennai, Ooty and Kolkata. It is contended
that the accused No.1 got acquainted with the complainant - one
late Edwin Joubert Van Ingen - a Taxidermist by profession and a
member of the Mysore Race Club where he used to meet the
complainant quite often. The complainant was a founder member
of the said race club. Trophies were distributed in the name of the
complainant. It is that amount of popularity the complainant had in
the race circle at Mysore.
(c) On one occasion, during the month of
November/December 2004 the complainant appears to have called
the accused No.1 and informed him that he possesses two
immovable properties at Mysuru - one, a factory and the other, a
residential house and also a coffee estate in Waynad District, Kerala
State, and with his old age, he is not in a position to maintain both
the properties and desired to dispose them off. The accused No.1
was informed that he was willing to sell all the three properties, if
5
he would get an appropriate price for the said properties. In
furtherance of the desire to sell all the properties, the complainant
handed over all the documents of his factory and requested the
accused No.1 to find a purchaser, who is willing to pay him an
amount of Rs.3/- crores by way of bank transaction and any other
higher value in cash.
(d) The accused No.1 claims to have contacted a builder
and developer by name Sri K.V.Prasad who showed keen interest in
the property after inspecting the same and met the complainant
along with the accused No.1 and agreed to purchase the factory for
a consideration of Rs.3/- crores. It is further contended that the
intended purchaser was directed to deposit the amount in an
escrow account in which the entire transaction of the complainant
was to be routed through. A sale deed was also registered on
10.10.2005 in favour of Sri K.V.Prasad. It is the claim of the
accused No.1 that he was instrumental in getting the sale done by
procuring all the documents and all other things for the same.
6
(e) After execution of the sale deed, the complainant asked
the accused No.1 to find a similar purchaser to sell the house
property which according to the accused No.1 was for a
consideration of Rs.75/- lakhs. The accused No.1 found the offer so
attractive and informed the complainant that he possesses some
landed properties below Nandi Hills and he would sell them and
arrange for payment of Rs.75/- lakhs and purchase the property for
himself. The accused No.1 claims to have sold the property at Nandi
Hills and paid the entire amount of Rs.75/- lakhs in one stroke and
purchased the said house. The purchase was again through a sale
deed dated 14.11.2005.
(f) It is further contended that since the complainant
continued to stay at the out-house of the said property, the accused
No.1 displayed all the animal trophies that the complainant had in
his possession being a taxidermist in other portion of the property
apart from residing in one portion of the said property. The
reminder of the property was the Waynad Coffee Estate which the
complainant was intending to sell.
7
(g) During the month of January of 2005, it transpires that
the complainant had informed the accused No.1 that he had
executed an agreement to sell Waynad Coffee Estate in favour one
Dr. Mohammed Bashir and the said agreement would come to an
end on 31.01.2005 and if the purchaser would not come forward to
get the property registered he would rescind the contract. The
accused No.1 claims to have been asked by the complainant to
develop the coffee estate as it was in a dilapidated condition for 10
years. The agreement entered into with Dr. Mohammed Bashir was
rescinded and the complainant executed a gift deed gifting the
entire coffee estate in favour of the petitioner. The gift deed was
registered on 1.02.2006.
(h) It is further contended that the complainant with an
intention that his trophies should be protected after his demise, got
one of the minor children of the accused No.1 in adoption in terms
of an adoption deed dated 29.04.2006. Further a Will was executed
for the remaining property viz., the bank account in favour of the
accused No.1 by way of registered Will dated 29.05.2005. Thus, all
8
the properties belonging to the complainant were either sold,
bequeathed or gifted to the petitioner.
(i) After execution of the gift deed in favour of the
petitioner, a complaint was registered against the accused No.1 for
violation of Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 with regard to
transactions between the accused No.1 and the complainant.
During all these proceedings, it appears that the complainant died
on 12.03.2013. After the death of the complainant, it is the claim
of the accused No.1 that he continued to be in possession of all the
properties mentioned (supra). A complaint came to be registered
against the accused No.1 before the jurisdictional police in Crime
No.46/2013 on 11.03.2013 alleging that the accused No.1 had
defrauded a foreign national, the complainant and knocked off all
his properties. After getting enlarged on bail, the accused No.1
filed Criminal Petition No.3615 of 2013 before this Court calling in
question the entire proceedings in Crime No.46 of 2013 which was
registered for offences punishable under Sections 403, 409, 420
and 464 of the Indian Penal Code. The criminal petition was allowed
and the proceedings in Crime No.46 of 2013 were quashed.
9
(j) The complainant's legal representative challenged the
said order of quashing the proceedings against the accused No.1
before the Apex Court. The Apex Court by its order dated
01.08.2017 set aside the order passed by this Court and directed
restoration of proceedings. After remand, the proceedings in Crime
No.46/2013 continued and the police after investigation filed a
charge before the competent Court. The competent Court took
cognizance of the offences punishable under Section 120B, 201,
342, 384, 403, 406, 409, 420, 465, 468 and 506 of the IPC read
with Sections 39 and 51 of the Wild Life Protection Act, 1972. It is
at that juncture the accused No.1 has knocked the doors of this
Court for the second time in the present petition.
3. The accused No.1 comes before this Court in Criminal
Petition No.4761/2018. This Court after detailed narration and
consideration of the facts, rejects the petition filed by accused No.1.
Accused Nos.1, 2 and 3 are said to be facing proceedings before the
concerned Court. The issue in the lis does not relate to the offences
10
under the Indian Penal Code to which the petitioner is dragged or is
alleged. It relates to the proceedings instituted by the Enforcement
Directorate for offences punishable under the Prevention of Money
Laundering Act, 2002 [herein after referred to as 'Act' for short].
The petitioner is a qualified registered medical practitioner, runs 50
bedded multispecialty hospital in Mysore and is said to have all the
requisite licenses to be subsisting till 2028. It is the claim of the
petitioner that one of his friend informs him over phone that he is
sending one patient to his hospital for treatment. The patient was
101 years named Mr.Edwin Joubert Vaningen. The patient visits the
petitioner on 08.03.2013 along with his attendants. Between
09.03.2013 and 11.03.2013, it is the averment in the petition that
the said patient who was 101 years visits the hospital on several
occasions for his medical condition and was treated as an
outpatient. The further averment is that on 12.03.2013, the
petitioner receives a call between 6.00 to 6.30 am and is informed
that the patient is unresponsive. The petitioner then is said to have
personally visited the patient at his place and upon examination,
was declared dead due to natural causes with advancing age. At the
time of death, is said to have been mentioned at 5.30 am. On
11
12.03.2013, a note of death is issued by the petitioner being the
doctor who had examined the patient.
4. On 01.05.2013, two months after the issuance of the
aforesaid death note, one Mr.Michael Floyd Eshwer claiming to be
the son of the deceased, approaches the petitioner seeking issuance
of a death certificate. A separate death certificate was issued
indicating the time of death as 12.30 am instead of 5.30 am.
Mr.Michael Floyd Eshwer takes advantage of this, files a petition
seeking quashment of the crime against him. This was quashed and
the aftermath of such quashment is narrated herein above.
5. The axe of the Enforcement Directorate falls on the
accused. An Enforcement Case Information Report [ECIR] is
registered against the accused and the petitioner is summoned.
Statement of the petitioner is recorded. The registration of the ECIR
and the concerned Court taking cognizance and registering Special
C.C.No.846/2021 is what has driven the petitioner to this Court in
the subject petition.
12
6. Learned Senior Counsel Sri.Sandesh J Chouta,
appearing for the petitioner would vehemently contend that the
allegations even if it is taken as true, will not constitute an offence
under the Act. None of the offences alleged in the predicate offence
against the petitioner are scheduled offences except the offence
under Section 120B of the IPC. What is alleged against the
petitioner is Sections 465, 201, 34 and 120B of the IPC. Learned
Senior Counsel would submit that the proceeds of crime should be
the basis of allegation against the petitioner. Therefore, he would
submit that the proceedings instituted against the petitioner, in
particular, under the other offences punishable under the Act, is the
abuse of the process of law. He would seek to place reliance upon
the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of PAVANA DIBBUR
vs. THE DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT1 to buttress his
submission that the offence punishable under Section 120B of the
IPC, will become scheduled offence only if conspiracy alleged is of
committing an offence which is specifically included in the schedule.
1
(2023) 15 SCC 91
13
7. Per contra, learned counsel Sri.M.Unnikrishnan,
appearing for respondent No.1 would vehemently refute the
submissions taking this Court through the documents appended to
the petition to demonstrate the Court has taken cognizance, the
allegation against the petitioner is giving a false time of death
certificate or a death note which led to the main accused getting of
with the crime. It is besides the point that the Apex Court has set it
aside but the petitioner has been in aid to money laundering by the
act of declaring the varied time of death. Everything hinged upon
the time of death. Therefore, the petitioner for section 120B at least
must be tried.
8. I have given my anxious consideration to the
submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and have
perused the material on record.
9. The afore-narrated facts are not in dispute. The afore-
narrated facts are a matter of record.
14
10. The petitioner being in the position of a doctor, is not in
dispute. He owning a hospital, is again a matter of record. The
issue that has dragged the petitioner into the web of crime is
issuance of a certificate. The averment in the petition is that the
petitioner had visited the deceased at 6.30 am and had issued the
death certificate thereon. The death certificate initially issued on
12.03.2013 reads as follows:
"DEATH CERTIFICATE
This is to certify that Mr. Edwin Joubert Van Ingen S/o Late
Eugene Van Ingen aged about 101 yrs died by lung infective
Cardio Respiratory arrest at 5.30 AM on 12/3/2013 at Bissal
Manti # 44 Mysore 570001. S India
_________________________________________________
ADITHYA ADHIKARI HOSPITAL
Contour Road, Gokulam
MYSORE-570 002
Ph: 0821-2513532/2512532"
11. Two months thereafter, the accused No.1 approaches
the petitioner and a death certificate is issued later. The death
certificate so issued on 01.05.2023 reads as follows:
15
12. This is in complete variance with facts and the narration
made in the earlier death certificate. This is where generation of
doubt and the accused No.1 in particular, got to get away with the
registration of the crime.
16
13. The petitioner in the petition also accepts that he has
rendered these two certificates. The defense is that it is a clerical
error. The averment in the petition as found in paragraphs 13 and
14 is as follows:
"13. The Petitioner avers that approximately two months
subsequent to the issuance of the initial death
certificate, an individual identifying himself as Michael
Floyd Eshwer, purporting to be the son of the
deceased, Mr. Edwin Joubert Vaningen,
approached the Petitioner's hospital seeking a
death certificate. In response, the Petitioner
instructed the hospital officials to verify the
records and prepare the document accordingly.
The death certificate was thus drafted by the
hospital staff and duly signed by the Petitioner in
accordance with standard procedures. The copy
of the death certificate dated 01/05/2013 issued
by the Petitioner is produced as Annexure-F.
14. The Petitioner acknowledges that the death
certificate, which he signed, inadvertently stated
the time of death as 12:30 am instead of the
correct time of 5:30 am. This clerical error is
alleged to be inconsistent with the time recorded
in the initial certificate, leading to the current
dispute."
14. Till then, the offences under the Act had not fallen
against the petitioner. The petitioner was accused No.4 in the crime
so registered i.e., Crime No.46/2013. The Enforcement Directorate
17
then registers an ECIR and submits its report/complaint before the
Court of Session of the Special Judge in PCR No.39/2021 against all
the accused in the predicate offence i.e., Crime No.46/2013. Based
upon the crime so registered, the concerned Court takes cognizance
of the offences under the Act against accused Nos.1 to 4. The order
of cognizance in so far as the present petitioner is concerned is as
follows:
"A4 - Dr.Chandrashekar.N is a Doctor and owner of
Adithya Adhikari Hospital in Mysore. He gave
treatment to Mr.Edwin Joubert Vaningen in his
hospital 08.03.2013, 09.03.2013, 10.03.2013 on and
11.03.2013 and sent him back on 11.03.2013. On
12.03.2013 between 6.00 a.m. to 6.30 a.m. some
women called him on his mobile and informed that
Vaningen is not breathing and requested him to come
and examine. He went and examined him and found
that he died half an hour or one hour back. On the
same day, he issued Death Certificate mentioning the
death time as 5.30 a.m. Further, treatment given to
him was mentioned in the hospital OPD book as on
08.03.2013 and 09.03.2013 only. But he had taken
treatment on 10.03.2013 and 11.03.2013 also, which
was not mentioned in the OPD book. Doctor failed to
produce said OPD book to Sultan Bathery Court,
Mysore and stated that he has missed out the said OPD
book. A1 approached him to issue Death Certificate of
Mr.Vaningen and A4 gave Death Certificate by
mentioning the time of death as 12.30 a.m. instead of
5.30 a.m. Hence, he assisted A1 in committing the
crime"
18
The submission is that there is nothing found against the petitioner,
there is no role for him to be dragged into the web of the offences
under the Act. The submission does not merit any acceptance in the
light of the narration of involvement of the present petitioner. The
ECIR registered by the Enforcement Directorate is as follows:
"3.Brief facts of the offence/allegation/Charge/
amount involved, under PMLA:
a) Based on the complaint received from Late Edwin
Joubert Vaningen, a British National, who was
unmarried and was residing alone in the Bissal Munti
house situated at Hyder Ali Road, Mysuru, Vaningen
who was the owner of the Taxidermy factory and a
member in the Mysuru Race Club. In the year 1999,
Vaningen closed the said Taxidermy factory. In the
year 2005, Shri Vaningen was 92 years old. Shri Edwin
Joubert Vaningen had alleged in his complaint that
Shri Michael Floyd Eshwer illegally detained him,
cheated him and obtained his signatures and forcefully
acquired his Estate and properties in his custody by
creating forged documents. Shri Edwin Joubert
Vaningen lodged a complaint to Police authority on
02.03.2013 to take action against Shri Michael Floyd
Eshwer and requesting to give protection to him and
his servants, with Nazarabad Police Station and the
police received the complaint under petition and on
the same complaint on 11.03.2013 registered a case
vide Crime No.46/2013 U/s 403, 409, 420, 464 IPC.
The accused Shri Michael Floyd Eshwer filed a Writ
Petition to quash the said FIR and on 19.06.2014 the
Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka passed an Order
quashing the said case in CRLP 3615/2013.
b) Ms. Metilda Rosamund Gifford @ Tilla Gifford, D/o
Neek Gifford Artist (Ceramics Colors), England,
approached the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India
19
against the Orders passed by the Hon'ble High Court
of Karnataka in CRLP 3615/2013, seeking justice. On
01.08.2017, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India
passed an Order in Criminal Appeal No. 1297/2017
(Arising out of SLP (CRL) No.3555/2015 quashing the
Order passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka
and directed the Karnataka State Police to investigate
the case in depth and file chargesheet within the
stipulated time. Based on the directions of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court of India, the Criminal Investigation
Department, Bengaluru had taken up the investigation
and had filed Chargesheet before the Hon'ble 3rd CJM,
Mysuru City against Shri Michael Floyd Eshwer vide CC
No.85/2018. The investigation conducted by the CID,
Bangalore had established that Shri Michael Floyd
Eshwer had acquired properties illegally by commiting
criminal offences and thereby projecting the same as
untainted property.
c) During the investigation under PMLA, documents such
as FIR, Chargesheet along with annexures were
collected from the CID, Bengaluru, under Section 54 of
the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, which
revealed that Shri Michael Floyd Eshwer is a resident
of Bengaluru and working as Horse Trainer in
Bengaluru and Mysuru Race club. In the year 2005, he
had come in contact with Vaningen and he made him
believe that he would look after him very well and had
become very close to him and started staying with him
in the Bissal Munti house and took him in confidence.
Mr. Michael Floyd Eshwer misused the age factor of
Shri Edwin Joubert Vaningen and threatened him with
life, kept him in afraid and when Shri Edwin Joubert
Vaningen became very afraid, Shri Michael Floyd
Eshwer dishonestly got his properties in his name,
which was proved by the CID in their investigation.
Shri Michael Floyd Eshwer purchased the house Bissal
Munti from Shri Edwin Joubert Vaningen on
14.11.2005 for an amount of Rs. 75 lakhs. After the
sale of the Bissal Munti house on 14.11.2005, Shri
Michael Floyd Eshwer colluded with others and on
29.05.2006 made Shri Edwin Joubert Vaningen to
make a Will registered at Sub Registrar Office North,
20
Mysuru, mentioning in the Will that after the death of
Shri Edwin Joubert Vaningen all the properties would
belong to Shri Michael Floyd Eshwer. But in the
registered sale deed which was made prior to this on
14.11.2005, it was mentioned that after the death of
Shri Edwin Joubert Vaningen, Bank Deposits, Cash,
Accounts held in different Banks in India, U.K.
Company shares, Animal Trophy, Animal Skins, Gun
and Gun licence and all other items would also be
transferred to Shri Michael Floyd Eshwer. Shri Michael
Floyd Eshwer kept Shri Edwin Joubert Vaningen who
was old aged person, in illegal detention and
threatened him with life, made him afraid and when
Shri Edwin Joubert Vaningen was in afraid position, on
01.02.2006 got 215.5 Acres of Coffee Estate, situated
at Mananthawady, Wayanad, in his name through
illegal gift deed which was proved by the CID in their
investigation.
d) On 29.04.2006, Shri Michael Floyd Eshwer made
Adoption Deed in the name of his minor son Carl
Lindle showing that Shri Edwin Joubert Vaningen had
adopted his son and also shown that he was the
guardian and on 03.05.2006 got the said adoption
deed registered and during the investigation it had
come to known from the evidence of witnesses that he
got this adoption deed illegally. Shri Michael Floyd
Eshwer after getting the Bissal Munti house got
registered in his name on 14.11.2005, he kept Shri
Edwin Joubert Vaningen in the out-house of the said
Bissal Munti house. Shri Michael Floyd Eshwer had
fraudulently got back Rs. 50 Lakhs from Shri Edwin
Joubert Vaningen which he had given him as sale
consideration for Bissal Munti House, Mysore, in the
pretext of expenses incurred by him towards the sale
deed and other expenses made by Shri Michael Floyd
Eshwer.
e) It was also revealed during the investigation
conducted by the CID that during the year 2005 to
2007, Shri Michael Floyd Eshwer got registered one
sale deed, two deed of adoption, gift deed and one
Will from Shri Edwin Joubert Vaningen in his name
21
between 14.11.2005 and 08.10.2007 i.e.
approximately within one year 10 months time, from
Shri Edwin Joubert Vaningen.
f) During the investigation, clarification was sought from
the RBI to give opinion regarding Shri Michael Floyd
Eshwer acquired properties through sale deed and
false gift deed, from Shri Edwin Joubert Vaningen. The
RBI had opined that "In case, Shri Edwin Joubert
Vaningen had transferred, by way of sale, his
immovable properties in India, without prior
permission of Reserve Bank of India as stipulated in
the holding license issued under FERA 1973, then it is
violation of the terms and conditions of the holding
license". Therefore, it clearly shows that without
obtaining permission from the RBI, if any property is
transferred by a British National, Shri Edwin Joubert
Vaningen, in the name of Shri Michael Floyd Eshwer
was invalid as per the law.
g) The CID, Bengaluru, had filed charge sheet under
Sections 201, 342, 384, 403, 406, 409, 420, 465,
468, 507, 120-B, 464, 197 IPC r/w Section 51 r/w 39
of Wild Animal Protection Act, 1972 against Shri
Michael Floyd Eshwer and others. It was established
that Mr. Michael Floyd Eshwer had indulged in the
offence of Money-Laundering as Sections 120-B, 420
of IPC and Section 51 r/w 39 of Wild Life (Protection)
Act, 1972, are scheduled offences under Section 2 (1)
(x) & (y) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act,
2002. During the course of investigation under PMLA it
was revealed that the proceeds of crime involved in
this case was Rs. 120 crores approximately."
15. After the filing of the said report, particular offence
against the present petitioner is also found in the charge. It reads
as follows:
22
"iv. Dr. Chandrashekhar (Accused-4): Based on the
summons dated 01.07.2019 issued u/s 50 (2) of
the PMLA, written statement u/s 50(3) of PMLA,
was given by Dr. Chandrashekhar on 12.07.2019
He inter alia stated that he is a doctor and living in
Mysore, Karnataka; that he is practising in a hospital
by name Adhitya Adhikari Hospital owned by him; that
the hospital is a multispecialty hospital having 50 beds
capacity; that he knew Mr. Edwin Joubert Vaningen as
an out-patient for about 4-5 days; that on 08.03.2013,
one person by name Edwin Joubert Vaningen aged
about 101 years had come from Mysuru for treatment;
that Dr. Chandrashekhar examined him and found
that he was weak because of dehydration and old
age; that Dr. Chandrashekhar gave him necessary
treatment and only outpatient treatment was
given; that Dr. Chandrashekhar gave required
treatment to Mr. Edwin Joubert Vaningan on
09.03.2013, 10.03.2013 & 11.03.2013; that on
12.03.2013 morning between 6.00 to 6.30 AM,
some women called Dr. Chandrashekhar and
informed that Edwin Joubert Vaningen was not
breathing and requested him to come and
examine; that then immediately Dr.
Chandrashekhar went to the address told by them;
that when he went and examined Mr. Edwin
Joubert Vanirigan he came to know that Mr. Edwin
Joubert Vaningan was dead before half an hour or
one hour back; that when Dr. Chandrashekhar
examined, he came to know that it was a normal
death and because of age factor; that on the same
day he issued death certificate mentioning the
death time as early morning 5.30 AM and signed
on it and gave it to one woman who was present
there; that two months later, on 01.05.2013, one
person by name Mr. Michael Floyd Eshwer came to
his hospital and introduced himself as Edwin
Vaningen's son and requested to issue death
certificate as the same was to be produced before
the Court; that then Dr. Chandrashekhar told Duty
Doctor Ms. Preeti to write the certificate; that
after she wrote the certificate Dr. Chandrashekhar
signed on that certificate; that in this certificate
23
the time of death was mentioned as 12.30 AM and
Dr. Chandrashekhar signed on it without properly
seeing the same; that the treatment given to
Edwin Joubert Vaningen was mentioned in their
Hospital OPD book on 08.03.2013 and 09.03.2013,
but on 10.03.2013 and 11.03.2013 he had also
come to their hospital and took treatment, but the
same were not mentioned in OPD book; that bill
for Rs. 7,750/- for giving treatment to him was
available in the system; that further he had
received a notice from Sultan Bathery Court for
giving evidence and he attended the Court and he
gave evidence regarding the treatment given to
Edwin Joubert Vaningen and issuance of Death
Certificate; that OPD card was also available for
having given treatment to Edwin and he carried
the same to Court; that somewhere the same
might have been lost and since then it was not
with Dr. Chandrashekhar; that Nazarabad Police
also requested to produce the OPD card, but when
he searched in the hospital, the same was not
traceable and the matter was informed to
Nazarabad Police Station; that a case was
registered by CID Bangalore and the case is going
on under trial vide CC No. 85/18 in the court of
the IIIrd Addl. Senior Civil Judge and CJM,
Mysore; that he was arrested by the CID on
08.11.2017 and he was in Judicial Custody for 8
days; that thereafter, he got bail and the case was
going on in the court; that Dr. Chandrashekhar
further stated that when he gave the required
treatment to Mr. Edwin Joubert Vaningan he was
semi conscious, restless and was not responding
to oral commands and the same were mentioned
by him on the letter dated 01.05.2013 issued to
Mr. Michael Floyd Eshwer; that the only proof for
all these reports, OPD card was misplaced by him
in Sultan Bathery Court and presently he didn't
have any proof to prove these facts."
24
16. How the offences under the Act would come in, is found
in the following paragraphs:
"On 11th night she was sleeping in Joubert's room. She
woke up a few times in the night and put on the light, to
check on Joubert and make him as comfortable as
possible. On March 12th morning she awoke around
5.30am, and found Joubert was no more. She then
called the doctor, as well as her father and called Ajit
and Crystal. The doctor arrived in the morning on 12th,
and declared Joubert dead; that Ajit and Crystal came
back to Mysore and helped organize the refrigerated
coffin and the preparing the body. They dressed him in
his hunting clothes and put fishing rods in the coffin. As
they had no access to the house, all this took place in
the outhouse. Workers and friends came to pay their
respects and see the body. Eshwar never came to pay
his respects to the body and never attended any of the
last rites or preparing of the body - though she was told
he was present in Bissal Munti at this time."
"B. During the investigation documents were collected u/s
Section 2 (1) (na) r/w section 54 of PMLA from the
Office of Director General of Police, CID, Special Units
and Economic Offences, Carlton House, Palace Road,
Bengaluru such as certified copy of Charge Sheet vide
Crime No. 46/2013 dated 11.03.2013. (RUD Pages from
16 to 94).
C. Letter dated 10.06.2019 issued by the Assistant
Director, Directorate of Enforcement, Bangalore to Sub
Registrar Offices, Mysore North, Mysore, Karnataka
under Section 2 (1) (na) r/w section 54 of PMLA, for
obtaining the certified copies of sale deed and
Encumbrance Certificate for the immovable properties
held in the name of Mr. Michael Floyd Esher and reply
dated 25.06.2019 received from Sub Registrar Office,
Mysore North, Mysore furnishing the certified copies of
sale deed and encumbrance certificate of the immovable
properties held in the name of Mr. Michael Floyd
Eshwer.
25
D. E- mail dated 01.10.2019 was sent to Sub Registrar
Office, Mananthavady, Wayanad, Kerala, under Section
2 (1) (na) r/w section 54 of PMLA to get certified copies
of sale deed and updated Encumbrance certificate. Sub
Registrar Office, Mananthavady vide e-mail dated
03.10.2019 furnished reply which showed the coffee
estate consisting of 246 aces of coffee plantation at
Alathur estate in Wayanad district, Kerala, is still in the
name of Mr. Michael Floyd Eshwer. (RUD Pages from
304 to 310).
E. E- mail dated 01.10.2019 was also sent to the District
Collector office, Wayanad, under Section 2 (1) (na) r/w
section 54 of PMLA to get present status of the coffee
estate consisting of 246 aces of coffee plantation at
Alathur estate in Wayanad district, Kerala. The District
Collector Office vide e-mail dated 22.10.2019 forwarded
copy of District Collector Order No. B3-2017/2545/12
dated 21.04.2018 along with Interim Order No. WPC-
27529/2018 dated 27.08.2019 passed by the Hon'ble
High Court of Kerala. (RUD Pages from 311 to 333).
F. Letter dated 21.04.2021 issued to Central bank of India,
Mysore Branch, under Section 2 (1) (na) r/w section 54
of PMLA to get certified copy of statement of account
bearing no. 1527625575 held in the name of Late Mr.
Edwin Jobert Vaningen. Central Bank of India vide letter
dated 26.04.2021 furnished reply. It was seen from the
statement of account bearing no. 1527625575 held in
the name of Late Mr. Edwin Jobert Vaningen that on
19.09.2008, Mr. Michael Floyd Eshwer had received
back Rs. 50 lakhs from Late Mr. Edwin Jobert Vaningen
which he had given as sale proceeds.
G. During the investigation, documents such as certified
copies of Sale deeds, Gift Deeds and Encumbrance
Certificates of the immovable properties held in the
name of Mr. Michael Floyd Eshwer were obtained u/s
Section 2 (1) (na) r/w section 54 of PMLA from Sub
Registrar office Mananthavady, Kerala and Sub Registrar
office, Mysore North, Mysore."
26
17. The role of each of the accused and the background is
also delineated further:
"a) Background: He passed his MBBS and one
year resident course in Anaesthesia from Mysore
Medical College, Mysore in the year 1977. After
that he practiced as a Doctor in Mysore and in
the year 2001, he purchased the Hospital from
one Shri H.N. Sridhar. He was practising in the
said Hospital by name Adhitya Adhikari Hospital.
The hospital is a multispecialty hospital having
50 beds capacity.
b) Role: He knew Mr. Edwin Joubert Veningen as an out-
patient for about 4-5 days; that on 08.03.2013, one
person by name Edwin Joubert Vaningen aged about
101 years had come from Mysuru for treatment; that
Dr. Chandrashekhar examined him and found
that he was weak because of dehydration and
old age; that Dr. Chandrashekhar gave him
necessary treatment and the persons who
brought Mr. Edwin Joubert Veningan were
refused admission of the patient, hence only
outpatient treatment was given; that Dr.
Chandrashekhar gave required treatment to Mr.
Edwin Joubert Vaningan on 09.03.2013,
10.03.2013 & 11.03.2013; that on 12.03.2013
morning between 6.00 to 6.30 AM, some women
called Dr. Chandrashekhar and
informed that Edwin Joubert Vaningen was not
breathing and requested him to come and
examine; that then immediately Dr.
Chandrashekhar went to the address told by
them; that when he went and examined Mr.
Edwin Joubert Vaningen he came to know that
Mr. Edwin Joubert Vaningan was dead before
half an hour or one hour; that when Dr.
Chandrashekhar examined, he came to know
that it was a normal death and because of age
27
factor; that on the same day he issued death
certificate mentioning the death time as early
morning 5.30 AM and signed on it and gave it to
one woman who was present there; that two
months later, on 01.05.2013, one person by
name Mr. Michael Floyd Eshwer came to his
hospital and introduced himself as Edwin Joubert
Vaningen's son and requested to issue death
certificate as the same was to be produced
before the Court; that then Dr. Chandrashekhar
told Duty Doctor Ms. Preeti to write the
certificate; that after she wrote the certificate
Dr. Chandrashekhar signed on that certificate;
that in this certificate the time of death was
mentioned as 12.30 AM and Dr. Chandrashekhar
signed on it/without properly seeing the same;
that the treatment given to Edwin Joubert
Vaningen was mentioned in their hospital OPD
book on 08.03.2013 and 09.03.2013, but on
10.03.2013 and 11.03.2013 he had come to their
hospital and took treatment, but the same were
not mentioned in OPD book; that bill for Rs.
7,750/- for giving treatment to him was
available in the system; that further he had
received a notice from Sultan Bathery Court for
giving evidence and he attended the Court and
he gave evidence regarding the treatment given
to Edwin Joubert Vaningen and issuance of
Death Certificate; that OPD card was also
available for having given treatment to Edwin
and he carried the same to the Court; that
somewhere the same might have been lost and
since then it was not with Dr. Chandrashekhar;
that Nazarabad Police also requested to produce
the OPD card, but when he searched in the
hospital, the same was not traceable and the matter
was informed to Nazarabad Police Station; that a case
was registered by CID Bangalore and the case is going
on under trial vide CC No. 85/18 in the court of the
IIIrd Addl. Senior Civil Judge and CJM, Mysore; that he
was arrested by CID on 08.11.2017 and he was in
Judicial Custody for 8 days; that thereafter, he got bail
and the case is going on in the court; that Dr.
28
Chandrashekhar further stated that when he gave the
required treatment to Mr. Edwin Joubert Vaningen he
was semi conscious, restless and was not responding
to oral commands and the same were mentioned by
him on the letter dated 01.05.2013 issued to Mr.
Michael Floyd Eshwer; that the only proof for all these
reports, OPD card is misplaced by him in Sultan
Bathery Court and presently he doesn't have any proof
to prove these facts.
c) Conclusion: Dr. N. Chandrashekara is a Doctor at
Aditya Adhikari Hospital, Mysuru issued a death
certificate about the death of Shri Edwin Joubert
Vaningen instead of mentioning the actual death
time of Shri Edwin Joubert Vaningen, he made
alterations and written another time in the death
certificate and issued death certificate and
without any documents he gave the details about
the treatment to Shri Michael Floyd Eshwer as
helpful in doing the crime and cooperated him in
committing the crime and the same is proved
that he has committed offence u/s 201 IPC and
likewise by giving false death certificate and
planned to escape from involving in the above
offences and the same was proved from the
investigation that Dr. N. Chandrashekara
committed offence u/s 120-B IPC. Even though
there are no documents available in the Hospital
also Dr. N. Chandrashekara issued death
certificate to Shri Michael Floyd Eshwer second
time by mentioning with wrong time about the
death of Shri Edwin Joubert Vaningen being
helpful to Shri Michael Floyd Eshwer and also
without any documents created and mentioned
that as if Shri Edwin Joubert Vaningen was not in
a position to lodge complaint against Mr. Michael
Floyd. Dr. Chandrashekhar prepared and issued
Medical death certificate to help Shri Michael
Floyd Eshwer in his crime with an intention to
get the FIR filed against him quashed.
It is clearly established the fact of support given by
him by issuing duplicate death certificate of Mr.
29
Vaningen on the request of Mr. Micheal Floyd Eshwer
by changing the time of death. Dr. Chandrashekhar
has accepted in his statement that when he gave the
required treatment to Mr. Edwin Joubert Vaningan he
was semi conscious, restless and was not responding
to oral commands and the same were mentioned by
him on the letter dated 01.05.2013 issued to Mr.
Michael Floyd Eshwer; that the only proof for all these
reports, OPD card was misplaced by him in Sultan
Bathery Court and presently he didn't have any proof
to prove these facts.
Thus, it is evident that he was indulged,
knowingly assisted and actually involved in
criminal activities and committed scheduled
offences defined u/s 2 (1) (x)(y) of PMLA, 2002
thus committed offence of money laundering u/s
3 of PMLA, 2002 punishable u/s 4 of the PMLA,
2002."
18. The conclusion against the petitioner is that he has
cooperated with the accused No.1 in committing the crime and is
found to have destroyed evidence which is an offence punishable
under Section 201 of the IPC and thereby, he has given a false
death certificate conniving with the accused, is therefore, an
accused under the Act. Therefore, it is not a case that would merit
quashment without the petitioner facing the trial. Heavy reliance is
placed upon the judgment in the case of PAVANA DIBBUR supra.
The Apex Court in the said judgment has held as follows:
30
""28. While giving effect to the legislature's intention,
if two reasonable interpretations can be given to a particular
provision of a penal statute, the Court should generally adopt
the interpretation that avoids the imposition of penal
consequences. In other words, a more lenient interpretation
of the two needs to be adopted.
29. The legislative intent which can be gathered from
the definition of "scheduled offence" under clause (y) of sub-
section (1) of Section 2 PMLA is that every crime which may
generate proceeds of crime need not be a scheduled offence.
Therefore, only certain specific offences have been included
in the Schedule. Thus, if the submissions of the learned
Additional Solicitor General are accepted, the Schedule will
become meaningless or redundant. The reason is that even if
an offence registered is not a scheduled offence, the
provisions of PMLA and, in particular, Section 3 will be
invoked by simply applying Section 120-B. If we look at
Section 120-B, only because there is a conspiracy to commit
an offence, the same does not become an aggravated
offence. The object is to punish those involved in conspiracy
to commit a crime, though they may not have committed
any overt act that constitutes the offence. Conspiracy is an
agreement between the accused to commit an offence. If we
look at the punishments provided under Section 120-B, it
becomes evident that it is not an aggravated offence. It only
incorporates the principle of vicarious liability. If no specific
punishment is provided in the statute for conspiracy to
commit a particular offence, Section 120-B treats a
conspirator of the main accused as an abettor for the
purposes of imposing the punishment. The interpretation
suggested by ED will defeat the legislative object of making
only a few selected offences as scheduled offences. If we
accept such an interpretation, the statute may attract the
vice of unconstitutionality for being manifestly arbitrary. It
cannot be the legislature's intention to make every offence
not included in the Schedule a scheduled offence by applying
Section 120-B. Therefore, in our view, the offence under
Section 120-BIPC included in Part A of the Schedule will
become a scheduled offence only if the criminal conspiracy is
to commit any offence already included in Parts A, B or C of
the Schedule. In other words, an offence punishable under
31
Section 120-BIPC will become a scheduled offence only if the
conspiracy alleged is of committing an offence which is
otherwise a scheduled offence.
30. Coming back to the facts of the case, in the
charge-sheets filed in the alleged scheduled offences, there
is no allegation of the commission of criminal conspiracy to
commit any of the offences included in the Schedule. As
pointed out earlier, except for Section 120-BIPC, no other
offence in the Schedule has been applied. Therefore, in this
case, the scheduled offence does not exist at all. Hence, the
appellant cannot be prosecuted for the offences punishable
under Section 3 PMLA.
Conclusions
31. While we reject the first and second submissions
canvassed by the learned senior counsel appearing for the
appellant, the third submission must be upheld. Our
conclusions are:
31.1. It is not necessary that a person against whom
the offence under Section 3 PMLA is alleged, must have been
shown as the accused in the scheduled offence;
31.2. Even if an accused shown in the complaint
under the PMLA is not an accused in the scheduled offence,
he will benefit from the acquittal of all the accused in the
scheduled offence or discharge of all the accused in the
scheduled offence. Similarly, he will get the benefit of the
order of quashing the proceedings of the scheduled offence;
31.3. The first property cannot be said to have any
connection with the proceeds of the crime as the acts
constituting scheduled offence were committed after the
property was acquired;
31.4. The issue of whether the appellant has used
tainted money forming part of the proceeds of crime for
acquiring the second property can be decided only at the
time of trial; and
....
32
31.5. The offence punishable under Section 120-BIPC
will become a scheduled offence only if the conspiracy
alleged is of committing an offence which is specifically
included in the Schedule.”
19. The Apex Court in the case of PAVANA DIBBUR supra
observes that there was no offence or no allegation of criminal
conspiracy to commit any of the offences included in the schedule.
As indicated except for Section 120B, no other offence in the
schedule has been applied. Therefore, the scheduled offence does
not exist at all. The said judgment is inapplicable to the facts of the
case. In the case at hand, as quoted supra, finding is that due to
the wavering time of the death certificate rendered by the
petitioner, the accused No.1 could take advantage of the act. The
issue is only with regard to section 120-B as that is the only
scheduled offence alleged against the petitioner. The conspiracy is
prima facie proved in the light of what is narrated herein above with
regard to the offences emerging against the petitioner. These are
disputed questions of fact which have to be thrashed out in a full
blown trial. Interference in the teeth of the aforesaid facts with
regard to the role of the petitioner would run foul of the judgment
33
of the Apex Court in the case of KAPTAN SINGH vs. STATE OF
UTTAR PRADESH AND OTHERS2:
“9.1. At the outset, it is required to be noted that
in the present case the High Court in exercise of powers
under Section 482 CrPC has quashed the criminal
proceedings for the offences under Sections 147, 148,
149, 406, 329 and 386 IPC. It is required to be noted
that when the High Court in exercise of powers under
Section 482 CrPC quashed the criminal proceedings, by
the time the investigating officer after recording the
statement of the witnesses, statement of the
complainant and collecting the evidence from the
incident place and after taking statement of the
independent witnesses and even statement of the
accused persons, has filed the charge-sheet before the
learned Magistrate for the offences under Sections 147,
148, 149, 406, 329 and 386 IPC and even the learned
Magistrate also took the cognizance. From the impugned
judgment and order [Radhey Shyam Gupta v. State of U.P.,
2020 SCC OnLine All 914] passed by the High Court, it does
not appear that the High Court took into consideration the
material collected during the investigation/inquiry and even
the statements recorded. If the petition under Section 482
CrPC was at the stage of FIR in that case the allegations
in the FIR/complaint only are required to be considered
and whether a cognizable offence is disclosed or not is
required to be considered. However, thereafter when
the statements are recorded, evidence is collected and
the charge-sheet is filed after conclusion of the
investigation/inquiry the matter stands on different
footing and the Court is required to consider the
material/evidence collected during the investigation.
Even at this stage also, as observed and held by this Court in
a catena of decisions, the High Court is not required to go into
the merits of the allegations and/or enter into the merits of
the case as if the High Court is exercising the appellate
jurisdiction and/or conducting the trial. As held by this Court2
(2021) 9 SCC 35
34in Dineshbhai Chandubhai Patel [Dineshbhai Chandubhai
Patel v. State of Gujarat, (2018) 3 SCC 104 : (2018) 1 SCC
(Cri) 683] in order to examine as to whether factual contents
of FIR disclose any cognizable offence or not, the High Court
cannot act like the investigating agency nor can exercise the
powers like an appellate court. It is further observed and held
that that question is required to be examined keeping in view,
the contents of FIR and prima facie material, if any, requiring
no proof. At such stage, the High Court cannot appreciate
evidence nor can it draw its own inferences from
contents of FIR and material relied on. It is further
observed it is more so, when the material relied on is
disputed. It is further observed that in such a situation,
it becomes the job of the investigating authority at such
stage to probe and then of the court to examine
questions once the charge-sheet is filed along with such
material as to how far and to what extent reliance can
be placed on such material.
9.2. In Dhruvaram Murlidhar Sonar [Dhruvaram
Murlidhar Sonar v. State of Maharashtra, (2019) 18 SCC 191 :
(2020) 3 SCC (Cri) 672] after considering the decisions of this
Court in Bhajan Lal [State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992
Supp (1) SCC 335 : 1992 SCC (Cri) 426] , it is held by this
Court that exercise of powers under Section 482 CrPC to
quash the proceedings is an exception and not a rule. It is
further observed that inherent jurisdiction under
Section 482 CrPC though wide is to be exercised
sparingly, carefully and with caution, only when such
exercise is justified by tests specifically laid down in the
section itself. It is further observed that appreciation of
evidence is not permissible at the stage of quashing of
proceedings in exercise of powers under Section 482
CrPC. Similar view has been expressed by this Court in Arvind
Khanna [CBI v. Arvind Khanna, (2019) 10 SCC 686 : (2020) 1
SCC (Cri) 94] , Managipet [State of Telangana v. Managipet,
(2019) 19 SCC 87 : (2020) 3 SCC (Cri) 702] and
in XYZ [XYZ v. State of Gujarat, (2019) 10 SCC 337 : (2020) 1
SCC (Cri) 173] , referred to hereinabove.
9.3. Applying the law laid down by this Court in the
aforesaid decisions to the facts of the case on hand, we are of
35
the opinion that the High Court has exceeded its jurisdiction in
quashing the criminal proceedings in exercise of powers under
Section 482 CrPC.
10. The High Court has failed to appreciate and consider
the fact that there are very serious triable issues/allegations
which are required to be gone into and considered at the time
of trial. The High Court has lost sight of crucial aspects which
have emerged during the course of the investigation. The High
Court has failed to appreciate and consider the fact that the
document i.e. a joint notarised affidavit of Mamta Gupta
Accused 2 and Munni Devi under which according to Accused 2
Ms Mamta Gupta, Rs 25 lakhs was paid and the possession
was transferred to her itself is seriously disputed. It is required
to be noted that in the registered agreement to sell dated 27-
10-2010, the sale consideration is stated to be Rs 25 lakhs
and with no reference to payment of Rs 25 lakhs to Ms Munni
Devi and no reference to handing over the possession.
However, in the joint notarised affidavit of the same date i.e.
27-10-2010 sale consideration is stated to be Rs 35 lakhs out
of which Rs 25 lakhs is alleged to have been paid and there is
a reference to transfer of possession to Accused 2. Whether Rs
25 lakhs has been paid or not the accused have to establish
during the trial, because the accused are relying upon the said
document and payment of Rs 25 lakhs as mentioned in the
joint notarised affidavit dated 27-10-2010. It is also required
to be considered that the first agreement to sell in which Rs 25
lakhs is stated to be sale consideration and there is reference
to the payment of Rs 10 lakhs by cheques. It is a registered
document. The aforesaid are all triable issues/allegations
which are required to be considered at the time of trial. The
High Court has failed to notice and/or consider the material
collected during the investigation.
11. Now so far as the finding recorded by the High Court
that no case is made out for the offence under Section 406 IPC
is concerned, it is to be noted that the High Court itself has
noted that the joint notarised affidavit dated 27-10-2010 is
seriously disputed, however as per the High Court the same is
required to be considered in the civil proceedings. There the
High Court has committed an error. Even the High Court has
failed to notice that another FIR has been lodged against the
36
accused for the offences under Sections 467, 468, 471 IPC
with respect to the said alleged joint notarised affidavit. Even
according to the accused the possession was handed over to
them. However, when the payment of Rs 25 lakhs as
mentioned in the joint notarised affidavit is seriously disputed
and even one of the cheques out of 5 cheques each of Rs 2
lakhs was dishonoured and according to the accused they were
handed over the possession (which is seriously disputed) it can
be said to be entrustment of property. Therefore, at this stage
to opine that no case is made out for the offence under
Section 406 IPC is premature and the aforesaid aspect is to be
considered during trial. It is also required to be noted that the
first suit was filed by Munni Devi and thereafter subsequent
suit came to be filed by the accused and that too for
permanent injunction only. Nothing is on record that any suit
for specific performance has been filed. Be that as it may, all
the aforesaid aspects are required to be considered at the time
of trial only.
12. Therefore, the High Court has grossly erred in
quashing the criminal proceedings by entering into the
merits of the allegations as if the High Court was
exercising the appellate jurisdiction and/or conducting
the trial. The High Court has exceeded its jurisdiction in
quashing the criminal proceedings in exercise of powers
under Section 482 CrPC.
13. Even the High Court has erred in observing that
original complaint has no locus. The aforesaid observation is
made on the premise that the complainant has not placed on
record the power of attorney along with the counter filed
before the High Court. However, when it is specifically stated
in the FIR that Munni Devi has executed the power of attorney
and thereafter the investigating officer has conducted the
investigation and has recorded the statement of the
complainant, accused and the independent witnesses,
thereafter whether the complainant is having the power of
attorney or not is to be considered during trial.
14. In view of the above and for the reasons stated
above, the impugned judgment and order [Radhey Shyam
Gupta v. State of U.P., 2020 SCC OnLine All 914] passed by
37
the High Court quashing the criminal proceedings in exercise
of powers under Section 482 CrPC is unsustainable and the
same deserves to be quashed and set aside and is accordingly
quashed and set aside. Now, the trial is to be conducted and
proceeded further in accordance with law and on its own
merits. It is made clear that the observations made by this
Court in the present proceedings are to be treated to be
confined to the proceedings under Section 482 CrPC only and
the trial court to decide the case in accordance with law and
on its own merits and on the basis of the evidence to be laid
and without being influenced by any of the observations made
by us hereinabove. The present appeal is accordingly allowed.”
(Emphasis supplied)
In the light of the issue revolving around seriously disputed
questions of fact with regard to the involvement of the petitioner,
which prima facie touch upon the conspiracy with accused No.1,
there is no warrant to entertain the petition under Section 482 of
the Cr.P.C.
Petition lacking in merit, stands rejected.
SD/-
(M.NAGAPRASANNA)
JUDGE
cbc
CT:SS