Victim Has Locus To Request Court To Summon Witnesses Under Section 311 CrPC In State Prosecution: Allahabad High Court Order 2 Rule 2 CPC Cannot Be Ground to Reject a Plaint: Supreme Court Draws Crucial Distinction Between Bar to Sue and Bar by Law No Right to Lawyer Before Advisory Board in Preventive Detention — Unless Government Appears Through Legal Practitioner: Supreme Court Wife's Dowry Statement Cannot Be Used to Prosecute Her for 'Giving' Dowry: Supreme Court Upholds Section 7(3) Shield Husband's Loan Repayments Cannot Reduce Wife's Maintenance: Supreme Court Raises Amount to ₹25,000 From ₹15,000 Prisoners Don't Surrender Their Rights at the Prison Gate: Supreme Court Issues Binding SOP to End Delays in Legal Aid Appeals A Judgment Must Be a Self-Contained Document Even When Defendant Never Appears: Supreme Court on Ex Parte Decrees Court Cannot Dismiss Ex Parte Suit on Unpleaded, Unframed Issue: Supreme Court Sets Aside Specific Performance Decree Denied on Title Erroneous High Court Observations Cannot Be Used to Stake Property Claims: Supreme Court Steps In to Prevent Misuse of Judicial Observations No Criminal Proceedings Would Have Been Initiated Had Financial Settlement Succeeded: Supreme Court Grants Anticipatory Bail In Rape Case Directors Cannot Escape Pollution Law Prosecution by Claiming Ignorance: Allahabad High Court Refuses to Quash Summons Against Company Directors Order 7 Rule 11 CPC | Court Cannot Peek Into Defence While Rejecting Plaint: Delhi High Court Death 3½ Months After Accident Doesn't Break Causal Link If Doctors Testify Injuries Could Cause Death: Andhra Pradesh High Court LLB Intern Posed as Supreme Court Advocate, Used Fake Bar Council Card and Police Station Seals to Defraud Victims of Rs. 80 Lakhs: Gujarat High Court Rejects Anticipatory Bail Husband Who Travels to Wife's City on Leave, Cohabits With Her, Then Claims She 'Never Lived With Him' Cannot Prove Cruelty: Jharkhand High Court Liquor Licence Is a State Privilege, Not a Citizen's Right — No Vested Right of Renewal Survives a Change in Rules: Karnataka High Court Sets Aside Stay on E-Auction Policy Court Holiday Cannot Save Prosecution From Default Bail: MP High Court No Search At Your Premises, No Incriminating Document, No Case: Rajasthan HC Quashes Rs. 18 Crore Tax Assessment Under Section 153C Limitation Act | Litigant Cannot Be Punished For Court's Own Docket Load: J&K High Court

Himachal High Court Upholds Fraud Charges in ₹27 Crore Scam: Cooperative Society Members Face Trial for Fictitious Loans

02 October 2024 9:13 PM

By: Deepak Kumar


Himachal Pradesh High Court rejected the petition filed by Sharwan Singh and another member of a cooperative society to discharge them from fraud and conspiracy charges under Sections 420 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code. The charges stem from a fraudulent loan disbursal case involving ₹27 crore, in which the petitioners were accused of signing fictitious resolutions as members of the managing committee.

The case arose from allegations of financial irregularities in Tillai Gram Sewa Sehkari Sabha Samiti, where loans totaling ₹27 crores were fraudulently disbursed to fictitious loanees. The cooperative’s secretary and certain members of the managing committee were accused of facilitating the disbursal without following proper procedures. Investigations revealed that fraudulent promissory notes were used, and large sums were transferred to the secretary's personal account.

The petitioners contended that they were not involved in the fraudulent transactions and were not members when the fraudulent loans were sanctioned. However, the court noted that prima facie evidence, including their signatures on the resolution, indicated their involvement in the conspiracy. The court cited:

“The learned Trial Court had rightly held that the petitioners could not be discharged based on the material placed before the Court.”

The court also emphasized that it was not the stage to assess the evidence fully but to determine if there were sufficient grounds for framing charges.

The court upheld the trial court's decision to frame charges against the petitioners, noting that the allegations were serious and involved a large sum of unrecovered money. The court referred to multiple precedents, stating that at the stage of framing charges, the evidence must be assumed to be true. The petitioners' defense, claiming they were not part of the resolutions, was deemed a matter for trial.

The petition to quash the charges was dismissed, and the court ordered the petitioners to appear before the trial court on October 23, 2024, to proceed with the trial.

Sharwan Singh & Anr. vs. State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors.

Date of Decision: September 30, 2024

Latest Legal News