Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Sri B. Prashanth Hegde, filed a complaint against officers of State Bank of India and Punjab National Bank for offences under Sections 120B, 403, 408, 409, 447, 381, 420 read with Section 37 of IPC, alleging misappropriation of funds and cheating. An FIR was registered as Crime No.486/2015 at Ashoknagar Police Station, Bengaluru. After investigation, a charge sheet was filed and the case was pending as C.C.No.11073/2018 before the I Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru. The Magistrate took cognizance against the individual accused officers but did not summon the banks as body corporates. The petitioner filed this writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 CrPC seeking a direction to the Magistrate to take cognizance and issue summons to the banks. The High Court held that since the officers acted on behalf of the banks, the banks are vicariously liable and the Magistrate erred in not summoning them. The court allowed the petition and directed the Magistrate to take cognizance against the banks and issue summons.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure Code - Cognizance against Body Corporate - Section 482 CrPC, Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution - Magistrate's failure to summon banks as accused despite prima facie case against their officers - Held that the Magistrate ought to have taken cognizance against the body corporates as the officers acted on behalf of the banks, and the High Court can direct the Magistrate to do so under its inherent powers (Paras 1-10).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Magistrate erred in not taking cognizance against the body corporates (State Bank of India and Punjab National Bank) despite a prima facie case being made out against their officers, and whether the High Court can direct the Magistrate to issue summons to the banks under its inherent powers.
Final Decision
The High Court allowed the petition and directed the I Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru to take cognizance against State Bank of India and Punjab National Bank as body corporates and issue summons to them in C.C.No.11073/2018.
Law Points
- Criminal Procedure Code
- 1973
- Section 482
- Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution of India
- cognizance against body corporate
- vicarious liability of companies
- summoning of accused
- inherent powers of High Court
Case Details
2023 LawText (KAR) (03) 20
Writ Petition No.18864 of 2021 (GM-RES)
Sri. Sandesh J. Chouta, Senior Advocate for Sri. H.N. Vasudevan, Advocate; Sri. Kiran S. Javali, SPP along with Sri. R.D. Renukaradhya, HCGP
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution of India read with Section 482 CrPC seeking direction to Magistrate to take cognizance against body corporates (banks) in a criminal case.
Remedy Sought
Petitioner (first informant) sought direction to the I Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru to take cognizance and issue summons to State Bank of India and Punjab National Bank as accused in C.C.No.11073/2018.
Filing Reason
Magistrate took cognizance against individual accused officers but failed to summon the banks as body corporates despite prima facie case.
Previous Decisions
FIR registered as Crime No.486/2015; charge sheet filed; case pending as C.C.No.11073/2018 before I Additional CMM, Bengaluru.
Issues
Whether the Magistrate erred in not taking cognizance against the body corporates (banks) despite a prima facie case against their officers.
Whether the High Court can direct the Magistrate to issue summons to the banks under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution read with Section 482 CrPC.
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioner argued that the banks are vicariously liable for the acts of their officers and the Magistrate ought to have summoned them.
Respondent-State argued that the petition is not maintainable as the petitioner has alternative remedy.
Ratio Decidendi
The Magistrate's failure to summon the banks as accused despite a prima facie case against their officers is an error; the High Court under its inherent powers can direct the Magistrate to take cognizance against body corporates when the officers acted on their behalf.
Judgment Excerpts
This petition is filed by the petitioner-first informant under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India to direct the I Additional CMM Bengaluru to take cognizance against the body corporates i.e., State Bank of India and Punjab National Bank in C.C.No.11073/2018 for the offences punishable under Sections 120B, 403, 408, 409, 447, 381, 420 read with Section 37 of IPC.
Procedural History
FIR registered as Crime No.486/2015 at Ashoknagar Police Station, Bengaluru; charge sheet filed; case pending as C.C.No.11073/2018 before I Additional CMM, Bengaluru; Magistrate took cognizance against individual accused but not banks; petitioner filed writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 read with Section 482 CrPC.
Acts & Sections
- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC): 120B, 403, 408, 409, 447, 381, 420, 37, 468, 471, 474, 36
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC): 482
- Constitution of India: 226, 227
