High Court Ruling on Financial Irregularities Case Involving Harshvardhan Singh Jadon and Yogendra Singh

The High Court recently delivered a significant ruling in a case concerning financial irregularities involving Harshvardhan Singh Jadon and Yogendra Singh. The case revolves around allegations of misuse of positions to obtain cash credit limits improperly. Charges under Sections 420 and 120B IPC were framed against the respondents. Let’s delve into the details of this complex legal battle.


  • Allegations of financial irregularities and misuse of post against Manohar Singh Jadon were made.
  • Accused Harshvardhan Singh Jadon and Yogendra Singh were involved in obtaining cash credit limits without following due procedures.
  • Forgery and submission of fake documents for obtaining loans for relatives were alleged.
  • Accused parties include General Managers and Managers of the District Cooperative Kendriya Bank Maryadit, Shajapur.
  • Charge sheet filed for offences under Sections 420, 406, 409, 120B IPC, and relevant sections of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
  • Specific instances of unethical practices in loan approvals and renewals outlined for each accused party.
  • High Court of Madhya Pradesh quashed proceedings against Harshvardhan Singh Jadon and Yogendra Singh for alleged offences.
  • Alleged balance of Rs.25,65,894/- as on 31 March, 2002 even after exceeding approved credit limit
  • Charges framed against Harshvardhan Singh Jadon and Yogendra Singh Jadon on 24 February, 2014
  • Criminal revision filed against framing of charges
  • Court found no assertion of obtaining cash credit facility with no intention to repay
  • High Court in Revision Petition concluded offences under Sections 420 and 120-B IPC not made out against the accused

Also Read: Interpretation of Mandatory Statutory Time Limits


  • High Court examined if Sections 420 and 120-B offence is made out at pre-trial stage
  • Similar scrutiny for registration of mortgage was done
  • Loan was advanced without proper documents and respondents benefited from their father’s actions
  • Offence under Sections 420 and 120-B IPC disclosed prima facie
  • Respondents benefitted from cash credit limit due to their father’s position in the Bank
  • Other bank officials charged under Sections 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of the Act
  • Power under Section 482 of CrPC cannot be used where allegations need to be proved in court
  • The High Court’s order quashing charges against the respondents is set aside.
  • The charge under Section 420 IPC cannot be considered in isolation but must be viewed along with other relevant offences under the Act.
  • The respondents may be liable for offences under the Act with the assistance of Section 120-B of IPC.

Also Read: Challenging Legal Analysis in Acquittal Reversal


  • The appeal has been allowed.
  • The respondents can take further legal action as per the law.

Also Read: Appellant v. High Court of Rajasthan: Clarification on Export Incentives Scheme


Case Number: Crl.A. No.-000175-000175 / 2020

Click here to read/download original judgement

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *