LegalAware
LegalAware.ai
EMPOWERING LEGAL AWARENESS

Ramesh Rajagopal v. Devi Polymers Pvt. Ltd.

Criminal Appeal · Neutral citation not assigned (Criminal Appeal No. 133 of 2016)Decided 19 Apr 2016
Criminal Appeal No. 133 of 2016
Justice S.A. Bobde · Justice Amitava Roy

Background

The appellant, a Director of Devi Polymers Private Limited, arranged for a consultant to be engaged for one of the company's units and had consultancy payments made out of company funds; a website created by the consultant referred to a related entity, "Devi Consultancy Services," as a sister concern of Devi Polymers. The company prosecuted him under Sections 409, 468 and 471 IPC and Sections 65 and 66 of the Information Technology Act, 2000 read with Section 120B IPC, alleging criminal breach of trust, forgery and creation of a false electronic record. The Madras High Court declined to quash the criminal proceedings, holding that the issues required evidence at trial. The appellant then appealed to the Supreme Court.

Decision Breakdown

The Supreme Court held that, taking the allegations at face value, no offence was made out against the appellant. It found no dishonest intention in the payments made from company funds, since all three units (including the one the appellant headed) were part of the same single entity, so no "entrustment" to a separate party and no breach of trust could arise. On the IT Act charges, the Court found nothing to show the appellant lacked authority to access the company's computer systems, and no evidence that any computer source code was concealed, destroyed or altered, so Sections 65 and 66 were not attracted either. Applying the settled principles on exercising inherent power under Section 482 CrPC (as laid down in cases like Inder Mohan Goswami and R. Kalyani), the Court held the prosecution was an abuse of the process of court and quashed it.

Lesson Learnt

Criminal prosecution should not be used as a tool to settle what is essentially an internal business/consultancy dispute where the allegations, even if fully accepted, do not disclose any criminal offence; courts can and should quash such proceedings at the threshold rather than forcing an accused through a full trial.

Official source (sci.gov.in)View Judgment (PDF)

More rulings in Criminal Law

Criminal LawSupreme Court of India

Charming Rupon v. State of Meghalaya

The Supreme Court acquitted the accused, finding the prosecution's case riddled with serious doubt. Both the victim and her cousin (a key witness) admitted in cross-examination that they could not identify the accused and that his name had been supplied to them by the victim's mother, raising a strong suspicion of tutoring, especially since the victim admitted she had been coached by the public prosecutor before testifying. The mother's own conduct (not reacting urgently despite being told of the assault, and material facts missing from the belated FIR) was found "unnatural." A crucial witness, the school teacher whose disclosure triggered the FIR, was never examined, without explanation, warranting an adverse inference against the prosecution. The Court also noted that two medical witnesses were never meaningfully cross-examined because the defence counsel was absent on the relevant dates, and that the trial court had wrongly brushed aside credible alibi evidence led by the accused.

Decided 9 Oct 2026Read case
Criminal LawSupreme Court of India

Ramkrushna Prahllad Dongardive v. The State of Maharashtra

The Supreme Court restored the trial court's acquittal. It found that the prosecution never produced the original cashbooks, daily registers, or audit reports that would have actually proven the appellant was entrusted with and misappropriated the money: the investigating officer himself admitted these documents were never shown to him despite being asked for. The department also failed to produce records the appellant had specifically sought in his own defence. Separately, the search and seizure of documents from the appellant's house was legally doubtful, since both independent witnesses to the seizure turned hostile and denied knowing its contents, and the mandatory procedural safeguards for such a seizure were not followed. The Court also flagged that the High Court convicted the appellant for the very first time on appeal without ever hearing him on the question of sentence, which the law required it to do.

Decided 8 Oct 2026Read case
Criminal LawDelhi High Court

Gurpreet Singh vs. State (NCT of Delhi)

The Court accepted that the order recalling the proclaimed offender status be placed on record. Noting that the complainant was untraceable and the prosecution itself raised no serious objection to anticipatory bail, the Court found no reason to deny the applicant liberty. It granted anticipatory bail, directing release on a personal bond of Rs. 20,000 with one surety in the event of arrest.

Decided 7 Oct 2026Read case
Criminal LawDelhi High Court

Mukesh Rani vs. Narcotics Control Bureau

The Court noted the investigation was complete, the chargesheet was filed, the co-accused had already been granted bail, and the combined quantity recovered (1.976 kg) still fell short of the "commercial quantity" threshold under the NDPS Act. With ten witnesses yet to be examined and no indication the trial would conclude quickly, the Court found continued detention unnecessary and granted regular bail on a personal bond of Rs. 50,000 with standard conditions.

Decided 7 Oct 2026Read case
Criminal LawDelhi High Court

Aakash vs. State Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Anr.

The Court noted that all prosecution witnesses, including the complainant and the guest house manager, had already been examined, and that a co-accused in the same FIR had already been granted bail. Given the complainant's own testimony about voluntary association with the petitioner and the completed trial evidence, the Court found the overall facts favoured bail. It granted regular bail on a personal bond of Rs. 50,000 with standard conditions (reporting to police weekly, not influencing witnesses, providing address/mobile details).

Decided 7 Oct 2026Read case
Criminal LawDelhi High Court

Kundan Kumar vs. State NCT of Delhi & Anr.

The Court relied on earlier Delhi High Court rulings holding that whether a broken promise of marriage was "false" from the outset (criminal) or a mere "breach" (not criminal) is a question for trial, not something requiring custodial interrogation. Noting the investigation was complete and the applicant had no prior criminal record, the Court granted regular bail on a personal bond of Rs. 25,000 with conditions, clarifying the order was not an opinion on the merits.

Decided 7 Oct 2026Read case