The Supreme Court has restored a cheating case filed against the wife of Tamil superstar Rajinikanth on a complaint filed by a Chennai-based advertising company, alleging non-payment of dues for the promotion works of 2014 film Kochadaiiyaan. 

The Bench of Justice A.S. Bopanna and Justice M.M. Sundresh, however, granted Latha Rajinikanth to file an application before the Trial Court seeking discharge from the case.

The Apex Court passed the order on two Special Leave Petitions challenging the August 2022 verdict of the Karnataka High Court, which quashed the charges for cheating and giving false evidence against her. However, the High Court sustained the forgery charge against her. 

Challenging the High Court order, the advertising company (Ad Bureau Advertising Ltd) and Latha filed separate petitions in the Apex Court. 

The advertising company sought quashing of cheating and other charges, while Lathaa challenged the refusal of the High Court to quash other charges.

The Supreme Court disposed of both the petitions by restoring the original chargesheet. While doing so, the Court cited an earlier order passed in 2018 in relation to the complaint where it was observed that the complainant had a triable case.

The Bench clarified that it has not expressed anything on the merits of the matter. It also left it open to the parties to resolve the disputes through mediation. 

The Apex Court clarified that the Trial Court was free to decide the application for discharge on its merits without being influenced by the Supreme Court’s order. The Court also dispensed with the physical presence of Latha Rajinikanth until and unless the same was required by the Trial Court.

A special court at Vijayawada has said that prima facie case of cheating, criminal breach of trust, forgery and corruption has been found against the former Chief Minister N Chandrababu Naidu in connection with the skill development program scam case.

The Court was hearing an investigation case by the Andhra Pradesh Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB) in connection with the skill development program scam case in Andhra Pradesh.

The court under Special judge BSV Himabindu found that based on the material on record, a prima facie case was made out against Naidu for offences under the Indian Penal Code (IPC) as well as the Prevention of Corruption Act.

The Court also said that the former CM Naidu, while holding the Chief Minister of Andhra Pradesh office was engaged in misappropriation of government funds to the tune of ₹279 crore.

The order mentioned that the material in the remand report, statement of witnesses, material collected in the CD File and accused alteration memo on record, prima facie shows that Accused no.37 in pursuance of criminal conspiracy, while holding his office as public servant colluded with other accused committed misappropriation of government funds to the tune of Rs.279 crores by corrupt and illegal methods huge loss to the Government Exchequer.

The Court has remanded the former CM Naidu to judicial custody of 14 days.

The former CM in a plea challenging the CID’s remand report against him, had asserted before the Vijayawada court that he had been falsely implicated in the case.

He also claimed that there was a clear statutory violation of Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act.

Section 17A deals with the need for prior sanction to enquire into the actions of public servants done in the discharge of their official duties.

Naidu’s petition contended that in his case, since he was Chief Minster, the Governor of the State would be the sanctioning authority.

While so, Naidu claimed that his prosecution in the corruption case was not proper as the prosecution did not obtain prior sanction from the Governor of Andhra Pradesh.

Naidu also highlighted that the alleged offences were related to policy decisions that had been approved by the State Cabinet. Therefore, these decisions could not be questioned through criminal proceedings, Naidu contended.

The Court decided to remand him to Central Prison, Rajamahendravaram, which is well-equipped to accommodate high-profile accused taking to the given security concerns raised by the former CM, who holds Z plus security of the National Security Guard (NSG).

The case against Naidu pertains to skill development program scam that diverted government funds intended for a skill development project into various shell companies through fraudulent invoices, which did not correspond with the delivery of services.

A per the investigation, what initially began as a project primarily funded by technology partners, was unlawfully transformed into a government-funded venture through a tripartite agreement.

This agreement resulted in the release of ₹371 crore by the Government of Andhra Pradesh.

Later these funds were purportedly misappropriated by officials of Siemens Industry Software (India) Private Limited and DesignTech System Private Limited, who failed to fulfill their obligations.

As per the latest probe by ACB,at least ₹241 crore of the ₹371 crore allocated for the scheme was misappropriated.

The Supreme Court has received a review petition against its decision to quash the criminal proceedings pending against Sukhbir Singh Badal the Shiromani Akali Dal chief and his father and five-time chief minister Parkash Singh Badal along with the senior vice-president of the party Daljit Singh Cheema in an alleged forgery case over the political party’s dual constitutions.

In April, a verdict was delivered by a division bench of Justice MR Shah and Justice CT Ravikumar in the pleas filed them challenging summons issued in connection with a police case lodged against them on the strength of a complaint by a Hoshiarpur-based social activist and national vice-president of the Socialist Party, Balwant Singh Khera, alleging forgery, cheating, and concealment of facts.

The original complainant has sought a review of the April 28 judgment – which was delivered days after the demise of Parkash Singh Badal – claiming that it contained several ‘serious errors apparent on the face of the record’ resulting in a ‘grave miscarriage of justice’ in this matter. The petition states:“The errors are by way of mistakes of fact, as well as of law.

The errors include – erroneous recording and appreciation of the allegations in the complaint, application of the incorrect ingredients of various provisions of the law, and erroneous recording that no false document was produced, although several such documents are on record, apart from a witness statement categorically admitting to the deception and fraud alleged.”

Accusing the top court of conducting a mini-trial while quashing the summons – despite several judgments directing high courts to only find out if a prima facie case was made out based on the material collected, the petitioner has stated, “This court has sat like a trial court and despite a plethora of crucial evidence against the accused, has disregarded all of it on patently erroneous grounds – by way of errors of fact and of law.

“The role of the Supreme Court was to see whether a prima facie case was made out by examining the sufficiency of material for passing the ‘summoning order’ and the high court judgment but, [they] have been erroneously overlooked.”

Even the main allegation, the petition states, has been erroneously recorded in a limited manner. The review petitioner has argued that while the court considered the main allegation to be that of filing a false memorandum annexed with the application for registration under the Representation of the People Act, 1951, “the issues are far larger and include the filing of a false constitution and undertaking before the Election Commission of India and the using of two different constitutions before two different authorities – one, a false and forged one, to meet the eligibility conditions for the party’s registration as a political party, and the other, the real one, to meet the eligibility conditions to contest the Sikh Gurdwara elections”.

After highlighting a host of other alleged errors in the decision rendered by the top court, the petitioner insists that this was a ‘fit case’ for invoking the power of review by the Supreme Court enshrined in Article 137 of the Indian Constitution read with Order 47 of the Supreme Court Rules, 2013.

The petition states: “The errors in this judgment have caused a very important criminal trial against the accused – powerful politicians – to get nipped in the bud and aborted at its nascent stage, despite abundant and compelling material and evidence pointing at their role in the offences alleged to have been committed.

“The trial is important as it reveals a plethora of evidence showing their involvement in a series of fraud, cheating, and forgery in a most brazen manner, and they may not be allowed to get away with such fraud. This is thus a clear case for invoking the power of review by the Supreme Court…to set right such wrongs that may have arisen due to judicial fallibility. It has been repeatedly held that the delivery of justice prevails above all, and that justice, must not only be done, but also, be seen to be done.”

The Allahabad High Court has rejected the bail application of a lawyer, accused of cheating and forging property documents

A single-judge bench of Justice Krishan Pahal passed this order while hearing a criminal misc anticipatory bail application filed by Princess Mahi @ Saher Naqvi.

The anticipatory bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant in Case under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 506 IPC at Police Station Colonelganj, District Prayagraj with a prayer to enlarge her on anticipatory bail.

The FIR was lodged by Rakesh Kumar, an ex-Army man, alleging the applicant Princes Mahi @ Saher Naqvi had taken Rs 20 lakh from him in 2018 to get his wife a job in a junior high school. She had even introduced the informant to one Rajeev Tripathi at the office of BSA.

The applicant is stated to have neither returned the amount nor got the said job for his wife and she kept on dilly dallying with him.

On 1.1.2019, the applicant is stated to have taken Rs 50 lakh from the informant in lieu of a sale of a 200 square metre plot of NK Mukherji Marg, Civil Lines, Allahabad. The said amount of Rs 50 lakh was transferred from the account of Kchipra Business Solution Pvt Ltd of State Bank, Branch Sub-Area Cantt, Prayagraj to the bank account of the applicant through NEFT.

It transpired later on that the documents of the said plot are fake and the said forgery has been committed by the applicant in conspiracy with other members of the family. The applicant is stated to have fleeced and fooled the informant on one pretext or other and even threatened him.

The applicant in-person has pressed the anticipatory bail application on the following grounds:-

(i) that she has been falsely implicated in the case and has nothing to do with the said offence. The allegations with respect to the supply of Rs 20 lakh are per se false as there is nothing on record to suggest that any amount has been withdrawn from any account or transferred to the applicant. The said transaction is in cash, which is false.

(ii) that the final report (charge-sheet) has been submitted and the cognizance by trial court has been taken. The FIR has been lodged against all the family members just to harass them.

(iii) that after registration of FIR, the applicant and co-accused person Rizwan Ali (father of the applicant) had approached the Court in Criminal Misc Writ Petition, in which ad-interim protection was granted to them vide order dated 29.1.2020.

(iv) that after the submission of the final report (charge-sheet), the applicant had challenged it by filing a Criminal Misc Application U/s 482 CrPC and prayed for quashing the entire charge-sheet including the summoning order dated 12.1.2022.

(v) that transfer of Rs 50 lakh to her account is admitted, but the said amount has been transferred from the account of the company Kchipra Business Solutions Pvt Ltd and the matter is between applicant and the said company, that too is civil in nature and the informant, who is a stranger to the said transaction, has converted it into a criminal case which is not sustainable in the eyes of law.

(vi) that the agreement between the applicant and the informant is a notarized document and is not maintainable in the eyes of law.

(vii) that the applicant is an Advocate registered at Bar Council of Uttar Pradesh since 2019. She has also argued at length that when the applicant had cheated the informant to the tune of Rs 20 lakh, then there was no occasion for the informant to transfer such a hefty amount to her account, as such the allegations leveled in the FIR are false.

(viii) that she does not have any criminal antecedents to her credit, except the two cases which have been lodged against her regarding the same incident. She has pressed hard that she being an Advocate and lady is being harassed and she may be enlarged on anticipatory bail.

Counsel for the informant has argued that the applicant has admitted the fact that an amount of Rs 50 lakh has been transferred to her and the very fact has also been mentioned in the order of the Court.

Counsel has further stated that the applicant had misused the process of the court by taking it’s refuge at the drop of the hat as in addition to filing petition U/s 482 Cr.P.C challenging the final report (charge-sheet), she has even filed a criminal revision before this Court.

Counsel has further stated that the applicant had even filed a Writ Petition before the Apex Court under Article 32 of the Constitution of India seeking anticipatory bail, which was dismissed on the ground of alternate remedy being available to the applicant, although her anticipatory bail application was already rejected by the Sessions Court, Allahabad.

The Court noted that it is an admitted fact that the said amount of Rs 50 lakh has been transferred to the account of the applicant by the informant, who is the Director in company Kchipra Business Solution Pvt Ltd. The applicant is an Advocate and has argued the matter in person and has also admitted the fact of the said transfer of money to her account, but has stated that she is unable to do so as she is facing a case under Section 138 NI Act at Telangana, as such she is not sure as to whom she has to repay the said amount.

“After hearing the parties, going through the evidence on record and taking into consideration the fact that a huge amount of Rs 50 lakh has been transferred to the account of applicant, I do not find it a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail to the applicant,” the Court observed while rejecting the anticipatory bail application.

The Allahabad High Court has rejected the anticipatory bail application of a bank officer, who was accused of forged verification of loans worth crores of rupees.

A Single-Judge Bench of Justice Siddharth passed this order on May 27, while hearing a Criminal Miscellaneous Anticipatory Bail Application filed by Rajesh Kumar, under Section 438 of IPC.

CBI Counsel Sanjay Kumar Yadav informed the Court that charge sheet already has been submitted against the applicant.

Mr Yadav pointed out that the anticipatory bail rejection order of the court below showed that a charge sheet has been filed, but the same has not been annexed, which shows the concealment of fact.

Counsel for the applicant prayed for protection to obtain bail from the court.

“On the request of Counsel for the applicant, it is directed that the applicant will appear and surrender before the court below within 60 days from today and apply for bail. Till then, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicant,” the Court said.

Read Also: Justice Chandrachud wants to know if sedition case has been lodged against channel showing Covid bodies thrown into river

“However, in case, the applicant does not appears before the court below within the aforesaid period, coercive action shall be taken against him”, the Court ordered.

“It is made clear that the applicant will not be granted any further time by the court for surrendering before the court below as directed above”, the order read.

The Supreme Court on Friday issued notice and granted interim relief from arrest to a government official accused in a case of cheating and forgery registered with the MIDC, Police Station, Latur, Maharashtra. (Pandit Vs The State of Maharashtra)

A two-judge bench of Justices Vineet Saran and Dinesh Maheshwari issued notice to the State of Maharashtra to file its reply within six weeks on an appeal filed by a man, who was acting as Sub-Registrar at Murud. 

“Petitioner is at liberty to serve the standing counsel for the State of Maharashtra. In the meantime, the petitioner shall not be arrested in connection with F.I.R. bearing C.R No. 361 of 2020 registered with the MIDC, Police Station, Latur, Maharashtra,” said the top court in its order. 

During the hearing today, the Counsel of co-accused Pandit submitted that since the charge sheet is already submitted before the trial court, therefore, custodial interrogation is not required and he will co-operate with the investigation officer in any kind of assistance, if required.

The present appeal before the Supreme Court was filed against the order of the Bombay HC Bench at Aurangabad, which had dismissed the anticipatory bail application filed by the co-accused under Section 438 of the Criminal Procedure Code.

The petitioner is one of accused in the FIR registered with MIDC Police Station, Latur for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 387, 506 and 120-B of IPC.

The allegation against Pandit was that he hatched a conspiracy with the other accused, allowing a declaration deed to be registered, which contained recitals regarding transfer of property by the informant to the persons making the declaration, when, in fact, there was no such sale deed ever executed and registered between the informant and the main accused making that declaration.

The Bombay High Court Judge noted, “I have carefully gone through the papers of investigation. As can be gathered, the allegations are to the effect that the applicant enabled the prime accused to get registered a declaration deed containing recitals regarding execution of sale deed, purportedly executed by the owner of the property – the informant in favour of the main accused to suit their purpose and getting the land mutated in their names.

“This was perceived by the Controller of Stamps, when he issued such Circular dated December 22, 2011, observing therein that the experience had shown that there were instances of such kind of transactions and declaration deeds being executed and registered,” he added.

The High Court had declined the pre-arrest bail petition of Pandit, observed on basis of materials adduced by the prosecution.

Read Also: Supreme Court grants interim relief from arrest to an army man accused in case of dowry, cruelty, unnatural offences

“Admittedly, no sale deed was ever registered, purportedly transferring the immovable property belonging to the informant to the main accused. In spite of such a state-of-affairs, the declaration deed containing patently false statement regarding execution of such a sale-deed was allowed to be registered by the applicant,” the Bench observed. 

The High Court noted that the custodial interrogation of Pandit (petitioner) becomes imperative in this case, specially when charges of conspiracy are involved.  

“There is CDR demonstrating as to how the petitioner has been in constant telephonic conversation with the main accused,” the Court added. 

Source: ILNS

New Delhi (ILNS): Metropolitan Magistrate Ashwani Panwar has denied bail to Advocate Rakesh Kumar Awasthi, who had allegedly forged signatures of Home Minister Amit Shah and UP Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath on a recommendation letter for the purpose of appointment as Special Public Prosecutor.

The Magistrate said in his order: “Keeping in view the nature and gravity of the offences involved applicant/accused deserves no leniency on the ground that he is legal practitioner since 1991 as grave allegations of forging recommendation letters have been levelled against the applicant/accused. 

“The alleged forgery was done for the purpose of securing appointment as Special Public Prosecutor. Therefore, keeping in view the entire facts and circumstances of the present case bail application deserves to be dismissed. Accordingly, the present bail application stands dismissed,” said the Court. 

It was the case of the advocate that he has been falsely implicated in the case and he has good antecedent. He further submitted that he neither prepared or forged any of the documents to secure appointment as Special Public Prosecutor. 

Read order here;