5. We find that the High Court has examined the entire issue as to whether the offence under Sections 420 and 120-B is made out or not at pre trial stage. The respondents are beneficiary of the grant of cash credit limit when their father was the President of the Bank. The power under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 cannot be exercised where the allegations are required to be proved in court of law. The manner in which loan was advanced without any proper documents and the fact that the respondents are beneficiary of benevolence of their father prima facie disclose an offence under Sections 420 and 120-B IPC. It may be stated that other officials of the Bank have been charge sheeted for an offence under Sections 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of the Act. The charge under Section 420 IPC is not an isolated offence but it has to be read along with the offences under the Act to which the respondents may be liable with the aid of Section 120-B of IPC.
6. Consequently, we find that the order of the High Court quashing the charges against the respondents is not sustainable in law and the same is set aside. The appeal is allowed. It shall be open to the respondents to take such other action as may be available to them in accordance with law.
PARTY: STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH vs. YOGENDRA SINGH JADON & ANR. – CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 175 OF 2020 (ARISING OUT OF SLP (CRIMINAL) NO. 172 OF 2017) – JANUARY 31, 2020.
https://main.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2016/40505/40505_2016_9_1503_20106_Judgement_31-Jan-2020.pdf
State of M.P vs. Yogendra Singh Jadon 40505_2016_9_1503_20106_Judgement_31-Jan-2020
