Full Text
INDODAN INDUSTRIES LTD. & ANR Petitioners
Through: Mr. Manoj Swarup, Ms. Lalita Kohli & Ms. Cham Singhal, Advocates
Through: Ms. SoniaMathur, Standing Counsel for respondent-CBI
Mr.Vinay Sharma,Advocate for Central Bank ofIndia
(ii) + CRL.M.C. 3378/2012 & Crl.M.A.No.16948/2012
CSUBRAMANIAN
Through:
Swaminathan, Mr. Rahul Sharma, Ms. Shweta Singh & Ms. Shagufa Salin & Mr.Ram Gupta, Advocates
&ORS.
Through: ... Respondents Ms. Sonia Mathur, Standing
Mr. Vinay Sharma, Advocate for Central Bank of India
(iii) + SANAND
Through:
Petitioner Mr. R.Sarathy, Mr. S.S.
Page 1 2013:DHC:6809 & ORS. Respondents
Through: Ms. Sonia Mathur, Standing Mr. Vinay Sharma,Advocate for
Central Bank of India (iv) + CRL.M.C. 3379/2012 & Crl.M.A.No.16951/2012
N MURALIDHARAN Petitioner
Through: Mr. R.Sarathy,Mr. S.S.
^
Through: Ms. Sonia Mathur, Standing Mr. Vinay Sharma, Advocatefor
Central Bank ofIndia
18.12.2013 Petitioners ofthe above-captioned four petitions are charge-sheeted in RC No. 7(A)/97/BS&FC/DLI under Section 120-B IPC read with
Section 409/420/467/468/471 IPC and Section 13(2) read with Section
13(l)(d) ofPrevention ofCorruption .4cnitled as CBIv. N.Ramakrishnan c& Ors. and they are seeking quashing of the afore-referred FIR case on identical grounds and so with the consent oflearned counsel for parties, the above-captioned four petitions were heard together and are being disposed ofbythiscommon order.
At the hearing, it was vehemently contended on behalf of petitioners-accused persons that the dispute between the parties is of
Crl.MC.Nos. 2497/2007 &3378, 3380, 3379 of2012 Page 2 purely civil nature and in the proceedings before the Debt Recovery
Tribunal, a compromise has been effected relating to subject matter of this FIR case. Otherwise also, on merits, it is contended that prima facie case for the alleged offences is not made out against petitioners. To contend so, learned counsel for petitioner placed reliance upon decisions in Official Liquidator, Manasuba & Co. (Private) Ltd. v. Commissioner of Police & Ors. (1969) ILR 2 MAD 559, Seetharam v. Regional
Transport Authority (1995) ILR Null 1353, Central Bureau of
ORDER
4 Investigation, SPE, SIU(X), New Delhi v. Duncans Agro Industriess Ltd. Calcutta (1996) 5 SCC 591 & decision in Crl.M.C.No.160/2010 titled Kashibatla Ramakrishan v. CBI rendered on 16^ April, 2012 by a coordinate Bench of this Court. On behalf ofrespondent-CBI, it was strongly refuted that no case is made out against petitioners and attention of this Court was drawn to the reply of respondent-complainant bank wherein the stand taken is as under:- "I say that the OTS pertains to the aspect of recovery of the Bank dues and is in no case connected with the prosecution of the accused/s consequent to their criminal acts. " It was pointed out by learned counsel for respondent that the charges in this FIR case have been framed in the year 2012 and there is no challenge to the order on charge and till date deposition of eight witnesses has been recorded and next date ofhearing before the trial court is 3'^'^ February, 2014. Lastly, it was submitted that quashing of the proceedings arising out of FIR in question is sought on merits on the Crl.M.C.No,s. 2497/2007 & 3378, 3380, 3379 of2012 Page 3 n assertions which are required to be tested after evidence is recorded and there is no substance in these petitions. Upon hearing and onperusal ofFIR ofthis case, charge-sheet filed, material on record and the decisions cited, I find that offences in question are not compoundable and the stand of respondent-complainant bank is that payment ofdues does not absolve petitioners ofthe criminal liability. Respondent-bank has notgiven any "noobjection^'' to quashing ofthe FIR in question. Otherwise also, quashing of the proceedings arising out of these FIRs is sought onmerits while raising questions, which are required to determined at trial court so, decisions relied upon have no application to the facts of the instant case. In Gian Singh Vs State ofPunjab' (2012) 10 see 303, Apex Court has cautioned that in serious offences like the instant one, FIRproceedings are notto be quashed. Since this FIRcase is atthe stage of recording of evidence, therefore, this Court is notinclined ^ to exercise its inherentjurisdiction to quash the proceedings amidst trial as the pleas on which quashing of this FIR is sought cannot be pre judged. Resultantly, the above-captioned four petitions and the applications are dismissed while refraining to comment upon merits, lest it may prejudice petitioners at trial. Needless to say, trial court shall make all endeavours to expeditethe trial ofthis case.v' njNlL GAUR)
JUDGE DECEMBER 18,2013 vn CrlMC.Nos. 2497/2007 & 3378, 3380, 3379of2012 Page 4