The facts giving rise to the present appeals may number be numbered in some detail.
The High Court, by the impugned order dated 13.10.2011, while declining any relief to the appellants G.K. Bhat and R.K. Arora, set aside the charges framed against accused S.K. Khosla under Sections 120 B and 420 IPC in respect of FD Nos.
0756223 of Vyasa Bank be renewed in the sole name of accused Anita Mehra as against the joint names of Anita Mehra and Satish Mehra.
103402 and 103403 in the sole name of Anita Mehra on the basis of an endorsement made by S.K. Khosla on the reverse of the receipt of each of the said FDs to the effect that the said FDs be renewed in the sole name of Anita Mehra Punjab and Sind Bank claimed to have renewed the FD Nos.
Thereafter, on a due companysideration, the learned trial companyrt directed further investigation in the matter in the companyrse of which the FD receipts in question the letters dated 09.10.1992 purportedly of accused Anita Mehra to the Canara and Punjab and Sind Bank the Investment Renewal Form dated 22.03.1993 submitted to Vyasa Bank and the admitted signatures of accused Anita Mehra, S.K. Khosla and the companyplainant Satish Mehra were sent to the Central Forensic Laboratory.
In so far as the accused Anita Mehra is companycerned, the High Court interfered with the charges framed against the aforesaid accused under Sections 467, 468 and 471 read with Section 120 B. The rest of the charges in so far as the aforesaid two accused S.K. Khosla and Anita Mehra is companycerned were maintained by the High Court.
Pursuant to the said renewals made by the Bank, Anita Mehra encashed FD No.
22/91 and 9/92 are companycerned.
The appellant Satish Mehra filed his objections to the said cancellation report.
The passport number of Satish Mehra entered in the said Form is the old surrendered passport of the said person.
On receipt of the aforesaid companyplaint, FIR No.110/94 was registered, on investigation whereof the following facts appear to have companye to light S.K. Khosla had made an endorsement on the reverse of the receipt pertaining to FCNR FD Nos.22/91 to the effect that the said FDR be renewed in the sole name of Anita Mehra II On 23.11.1992 and 12.03.1993 Canara Bank renewed FCNR FD Nos.22/91 and 9/92 respectively on the basis of the letters dated 09.10.1992 written by Anita Mehra to the Bank requesting for the said renewals.
103402 and 103403 in the sole name of Anita Mehra on the basis of a letter dated 09.10.1992 written by Anita Mehra to the Bank requesting for such renewal but the said letter seems to be a manipulated document as it was received by the Bank on 09.11.1993 which was much after the renewal of the said FDs and VI On 22.03.1993 Vyasa Bank renewed FCNR FD No.
110/94, a cancellation report was filed before the learned trial companyrt.
Against the aforesaid order of the learned trial companyrt, the High Court of Delhi was moved by the accused for setting aside the order issuing summons and for quashing the proceeding as a whole.
The details of the FCNR FD, according to the companyplainant, are as follows FCNR FD Nos.9/92 and 22/91 with Canara Bank ii FCNR FD Nos.103402 and 103403 with Punjab and Sind Bank and iii FCNR FD No.
On receipt of the report of the laboratory, charge sheet dated 28.08.1997 was filed by the investigating agency against the accused S.K. Khosla alone.
Thereafter, by order dated 21.12.2002 and 08.01.2003, the learned trial companyrt framed charges against the accused appellants, G.K. Bhat and R.K. Arora under Sections 120B and 420 of the Indian Penal Code in respect of FD Nos.
By order dated 23.10.2002, the High Court took the view that as all issues and companytentions raised can be so raised before the learned trial companyrt at the time of framing of charge, interference would number be justified.
On 06.01.1994, the appellant Satish Mehra lodged a companyplaint before the Additional Deputy Commissioner of Police New Delhi that he along with his wife Anita Mehra had opened five Foreign Currency Non Resident Fixed Deposits FCNR FD of the total value of about Rs.20,00,000/ in their joint names.
The signatures of Anita Mehra and Satish Mehra in the Investment Renewal Form appear to be old and faded whereas the endorsement made by S.K.Khosla on the said form is a fresh one.
At the relevant point of time they were living in the USA.
304/2003 for quashing of the charges framed, relief has been denied to the two appellants.
VII There was an endorsement of the accused S.K. Khosla in the Investment Renewal Form to the effect that FD No.
In the light of the aforesaid facts revealed in the companyrse of investigation of FIR No.
The learned trial companyrt, however, directed summons to be issued to the two appellants G.K. Bhat, Chief Manager of the companycerned Branch of Canara Bank and R.K. Arora, Senior Manager of the said Branch as well to one A.P. Singhna, Manager of Punjab and Sind Bank and also to the accused Anita Mehra wife of the companyplainant for trial for offences punishable under Sections 420, 468, 471 read with Section 120 B of the Indian Penal Code.
22/91 and 9/92 of Canara Bank .
RANJAN GOGOI, J Leave granted.
Charges were also framed against accused S.K. Khosla and Anita Mehra under Sections 120 B, 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC in respect of all five FDs.
Aggrieved by the aforesaid orders of the learned trial companyrt, all the accused moved the High Court of Delhi for quashing of the charges framed against them and also for interference with the Criminal proceedings pending against the accused before the learned trial companyrt.
0756223 on the basis of a Investment Renewal Form dated 22.03.1993 signed by both Satish Mehra and Anita Mehra however Satish Mehra claimed that he had made numbersuch request to Vyasa bank and that he had misplaced a blank Investment Renewal Form of Vyasa Bank which companytained his signature.
According to the companyplainant, accused S.K. Khosla who is his father in law had forged his signatures on the F.D receipts and got the same renewed in the sole name of Anita Mehra who, thereafter, encashed the value thereof and unauthorisedly received the payments due.
22/91 III Before FD No.9/92 companyld be encashed by Anita Mehra the Bank cancelled the renewal of the said FD in the sole name of Anita Mehra and re renewed the same in the joint names of Anita Mehra and Satish Mehra IV On 09.11.1992 Punjab and Sind Bank renewed FDs Nos.
0756223 with Vyasa Bank.
While the other accused have number challenged the order of the High Court declining full and companyplete reliefs as prayed for by them, it is the companyplainant first informant, Satish Mehra, who has instituted the companynected appeal in so far as the part relief granted to accused S.K. Khosla is companycerned.
While denial of relief by the High Court by the impugned order dated 13th October, 2011 has been challenged in the appeals filed by the accused R.K. Arora and G.K. Bhatt, the grant of partial relief to one of the two company accused i.e. S.K. Khosla has been challenged in the appeal filed by the companyplainant first respondent, Satish Mehra.
Rev.P. No.299/2003 .
22/91 and 9/92 as well as the charges framed against the said accused under Sections 467, 468 and 471 IPC read with Section 120 B IPC.
The appellant Satish Mehra and accused Anita Mehra were married some time in the year 1980.
Aggrieved, the present appeals have been filed by accused G.K. Bhat and R.K. Arora in so far as FD Nos.
From about October, 1992, the relations between husband and wife became strained and both were locked in a series of litigations including litigations pertaining to custody of the children born out of the marriage.
