AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
S.D. Bajaj. J.
It is conceded in para 8 of the complaint that the loan obtained from the Bank on the security of the joint land has since been repaid by accused No. 1 and there is thus no charge on the alleged joint land subsisting, thereafter, basis for filing the complaint thus vanishes. It was observed by the S. C. in Madhavrao Jiwaji Rao Scindia and another, etc. v. Sambhaji Rao Chandroji Rao Angre and others, etc., 1988(1) Recent Criminal Reports 565 : AIR 1998 Supreme Court 709 : "The legal position is well settled that when a prosecution at the initial stage is asked to be quashed, the test to be applied by the Court is as to whether the uncontroverted allegations as made prima facie establish the offence. It is also for the Court to take into consideration any special features which appear in a particular case to consider whether it is expedient and in the interest of justice to permit a prosecution to continue. This is so on the basis that the Court cannot be utilised for any oblique purpose and where in the opinion of the Court chances of an ultimate conviction are bleak, and, therefore, no useful purpose is likely co be served by allowing a criminal prosecution to continue, the Court may while taking into consideration the special facts of a case also quash the proceeding even though it may be at a preliminary stage." In this view of the matter, Criminal Misc. No. 1268M of 1990 succeeds, and is allowed. Complaint Annexure P1 and the proceedings being taken on its basis before the learned trial court are all quashed.