Skip to main content

Act Of Recovering Dues On Behalf Of Bank Doesn’t Constitute An Act Of Abetment

The Bombay High Court in A.R. Satish vs State Of Maharastra has held that the act of recovering dues does not constitute an act of abetment.

Justice PD Naik set aside an order of Sessions Court, Raigad, rejecting the application for discharge filed by the accused and allowed an application for discharge filed by accused AR Satish, a bank employee in a case registered under Section 306 read with Section 511 of  the Indian Penal Code.

The court said-
“First of all, the material on record taken as it is, does not in any manner fulfill the requirement of abetment to the victim to commit the alleged act. Accused was acting at the instance of the bank for recovery of the dues of the bank. Admittedly, the victim had utilized the credit card of the Citi Bank. The bank was, thus, trying to recover an amount of Rs.1,30,000/-. Demanding the money from the complainant and assuming that he was threatened of dire consequences is in no manner can constitute an act of abetment. The Sessions Court has committed an error while rejecting the application by observing that there is grave suspicion against the accused that due to his alleged acts, the victim was forced to commit suicide.”

The court further noted-
“The intention of the legislature and the ratio of the case decided by this Court is clear that in order to convict a person under Section 306 of IPC, there has to be a clear mens rea to commit the offence. It also requires an active act or direct act which led the deceased to commit suicide seeing no option and that act must have been intended to push the deceased into such a position that he committed suicide. Applying the ratio laid down in the said decision, it will have to be held that even if the act committed by the victim would have been accomplished, it would not have been an offence under Section 306 of IPC and the question of invoking Section 511 with Section 306 does not arise.”

Thus, the court allowed the application for discharge and set aside the Sessions Court order.

Comments

Post a Comment

Most viewed this month

Court approached in the early stages of arbitration will prevail in all other subsequent proceedings

In National Highway Authority of India v. Hindustan Steelworks Construction Limited, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court opined that once the parties have approached a certain court for relief under Act at earlier stages of disputes then it is same court that, parties must return to for all other subsequent proceedings. Language of Section 42 of Act is categorical and brooks no exception. In fact, the language used has the effect of jurisdiction of all courts since it states that once an application has been made in Part I of the Act then ―that Court alone shall have jurisdiction over arbitral proceedings and all subsequent applications arising out of that agreement and arbitral proceedings shall be made in that Court and in no other Court. Court holds that NHAI in present case cannot take advantage of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 for explaining inordinate delay in filing present petition under Section 34 of this Act in this Court.
Post a Comment
Read more

No Rebate For Stamp Duty Paid In Another State - Bombay HC

A three judge bench of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court (Bombay HC) in a recent judgment in the matter of Chief Controlling Revenue Authority, Maharashtra State, Pune and Superintendent of Stamp (Headquarters), Mumbai v Reliance Industries Limited, Mumbai and Reliance Petroleum Limited, Gujarat1 has held that orders in case of a scheme of arrangement under Section 391 to 394 of the Companies Act, 1956 (Act) involving different High Courts in multiple states, are separate instruments in themselves. Accordingly, stamp duty would be payable on all the orders (and consequently, all the states) without the benefit of remission, rebate or set-off.
Post a Comment
Read more

The recovery of vehicles by the financier not an offence - SC

Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 8907  of 2009 Anup Sarmah (Petitioner) Vs Bhola Nath Sharma & Ors.(Respondents) The petitioner submitted that  respondents-financer had forcibly taken away the vehicle financed by them and  illegally deprived the petitioner from its lawful possession  and  thus,  committed  a crime. The complaint filed by the petitioner had been  entertained  by  the Judicial Magistrate (Ist Class), Gauhati (Assam) in Complaint Case  No.  608 of 2009, even directing the interim custody of the vehicle (Maruti  Zen)  be given to the petitioner vide order dated  17.3.2009.  The respondent on approaching the Guwahati High  Court against this order, the hon'ble court squashed the criminal  proceedings  pending   before  the  learned Magistrate. After hearing both sides, the Hon'ble Supreme Court decided on 30th...
7 comments
Read more