Pushpa Singh, Saket Kumar Singh and Abhijit Kanti Dam vs State of Jharkhand and Another

Rakesh Ranjan Prasad, J.—Initially this application had been filed for quashing of the first information report of R.C. Case No. 6(S)/2010-A.H.D.-R, registered u/s 120B read with Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 of the Indian Penal Code, against the petitioners. Subsequently, on submission of the charge sheet, when cognizance of the offences, as aforesaid, was taken against the petitioners vide order dated 01/02/2011, the said order has been challenged. The case of the C.B.I. is that one written complaint was filed by one Farukh Rashid Bokhari, the then Senior Manager, Allahabad Bank, Zonal Office, Ranchi, alleging therein that petitioner No. 1 Smt. Pushpa Singh, the Managing Director as well as the Directors namely, Saket Kumar Singh (Petitioner No. 2) and Abhijit Kanti Dam (Petitioner No. 3) of M/s. Sai Healthways (Incorporation) Private Limited, entered into a conspiracy among themselves and with other persons and in furtherance of the said conspiracy they, on the basis of the forged and fabricated collateral security, induced Officers of Katrasgarh Branch of Allahabad Bank to sanction term loan of Rs. 1,80,00,000/- with cash credit limit of Rs. 15,00,000/-. The loan was sanctioned for the purpose of purchasing hospital equipments and other allied assets. Further it has been alleged that the Managing Director and both the Directors got the title deeds of Guarantors/Mortgagors submitted to the Bank for getting the loan sanctioned. After the loan was sanctioned, the borrower company never care to deposit the installments as a result of which loan became sticky and, thereby, the Bank treated the loan and the interest of the amount of Rs. 2,26,93,794.58/- as well as the cash credit limit of Rs. 9,26,085.00/- as Non-Performing Assets (NPA). Thus, it has been alleged that the accused persons committed offences u/s 120B read with Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioners as well as the Guarantors/Mortgagors. On such complaint, a case was registered by the CBI as R.C. Case No. 6(S)/2010-A.H.D.-R. The matter was taken up for investigation. During investigation it was found that the Company did default in repaying the loan amount. However, at the request of the borrowers repayment had been rescheduled but in spite of that, payment was not made. The bank was unable to realize the amount from the mortgaged properties as the sale deeds deposited by the borrowers/guarantors were found to be doctored, whereby actual acreage of purchased land was substantially inflated in the manner given below:--

In that event, the CBI prima-facie did find that the accused persons did commit offences, as have been alleged and, thereby, submitted charge sheet. Upon which cognizance of the offences, as aforesaid, was taken, which is under challenge.

Mr. Anil Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that in the year 2007, the petitioners had obtained loan from Allahabad Bank, B.S. City Branch, Bokaro on depositing certain Title Deeds as collateral security. Subsequently, it was informed by the Bank Officials that there were some defects relating to the Title Deeds, which had been deposited as collateral security. The petitioners on 18/06/2010, submitted an application that they will be substituting those documents. Thereupon, on 27/07/2010, the petitioners submitted another set of documents as collateral security. Only thereafter, the instant F.I.R. was lodged on 25/08/2010. Thereby, it can be said that on the date when the F.I.R. was lodged, the documents, which were submitted as collateral security were in order and that after the F.I.R was lodged the petitioners did deposit all the amount, which was due to be paid to the Bank and in that event, No Dues Certificate, was issued by the Bank and the account got closed. Under this situation, the Bank is no more interested in prosecuting the case and hence, the order taking cognizance, in view of the decisions rendered in the case of Nikhil Merchant Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and Another, and Central Bureau of Investigation, SPE, SIU (X), New Delhi Vs. Duncans Agro Industries Ltd., Calcutta, is fit to be quashed.

In this regard, it was further submitted that the petitioners have already paid back a sum of Rs. 2.25 crores and, as such, question of wrongful gain or wrongful loss to the Bank does not arise. Further, it was submitted that only two deeds deposited, are directly attributable to the petitioners. But, as soon as the petitioners came to know that those deeds suffer from certain defects, the petitioners immediately filed an application for substituting those deeds and in that event, one can easily say that the petitioners had had no any mens rea to commit offence of forgery or cheating and, therefore, in such situation, if the petitioners are allowed to face the rigour of the trial, it would be abuse of the process of the Court and, therefore, the criminal proceeding against the petitioners be quashed by invoking power u/s 482 of the Code to prevent the miscarriage of justice.

As against this, learned counsel appearing for the CBI, by referring to the charge sheet, submits that the CBI during course of investigation did find that the accused persons by getting the sale deeds deposited by the guarantor secured the loan, which was never repaid. The said loan had been secured by making some manipulation in the sale deeds showing acreage of land more than what was there in actual and, thereby, the accused persons secured the loan by producing forged sale deeds. Therefore, the Court has rightly taken cognizance of the offences as aforesaid, which never warrants to be quashed even in a situation where the entire loan money has been repaid. In this connection learned counsel has referred to a decision rendered in a case of Central Bureau of Investigation Vs. Jagjit Singh,

Upon hearing the parties, it does appear that it is the case of the prosecution that the petitioners did secure loan on the basis of certain sale deeds, which have been taken to be forged as according to the case of the CBI, the measurement of the land was shown in some of the sale deeds, more than the actual measurement. Further it was found that the land shown in some of the sale deeds was never in possession of the loanee, still possession was claimed to be there of the loanee. At the same time, it was also found that the land possession certificate submitted by the borrower is forged. Non only that, the rent receipts and mutation certificate submitted by the borrower were also found to be forged and fabricated. In spite of all these acts being done criminal proceeding is being sought to be quashed as the entire outstanding dues have been deposited and, thereby, according to the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners any continuation of the proceeding would be abuse of the process of the Court in view of the decision rendered in a case of "Nikhil Merchant" (supra), wherein the allegations of forgery as well as cheating is there, but the parties had resolved their dispute. Subsequent to that decision when another matter, i.e Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab and Another, came for hearing before the Hon''ble Supreme Court, correctness of the decisions rendered in the cases of " B.S. Joshi and Others Vs. State of Haryana and Another, Nikhil Merchant Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and Another, and " Manoj Sharma Vs. State and Others, were doubted. Their Lordships, after taking into account the relevant provisions of the Code including Section 320 of the Code and also the decisions rendered in the cases, referred to above, was pleased to hold as follows:--

The position that emerges from the above discussion can be summarised thus: the power of the High Court in quashing a criminal proceeding or FIR or complaint in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction is distinct and different from the power given to a criminal court for compounding the offences u/s 320 of the Code. Inherent power is of wide plenitude with no statutory limitation but it has to be exercised in accord with the guideline engrafted in such power viz.: (i) to secure the ends of justice, or (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any court. In what cases power to quash the criminal proceeding or complaint or FIR may be exercised where the offender and the victim have settled their dispute would depend on the facts and circumstances of each case and no category can be prescribed. However, before exercise of such power, the High Court must have due regard to the nature and gravity of the crime. Heinous and serious offences of mental depravity or offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc. cannot be fittingly quashed even though the victim or victim''s family and the offender have settled the dispute. Such offences are not private in nature and have a serious impact on society. Similarly, any compromise between the victim and the offender in relation to the offences under special statutes like the Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences committed by public servants while working in that capacity, etc.; cannot provide for any basis for quashing criminal proceedings involving such offences. But the criminal cases having overwhelmingly and predominatingly civil flavour stand on a different footing for the purposes of quashing, particularly the offences arising from commercial, financial, mercantile, civil, partnership or such like transactions or the offences arising out of matrimony relating to dowry, etc. or the family disputes where the wrong is basically private or personal in nature and the parties have resolved their entire dispute. In this category of cases, the High Court may quash the criminal proceedings if in its view, because of the compromise between the offender and the victim, the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak and continuation of the criminal case would put the accused to great oppression and prejudice and extreme injustice would be caused to him by not quashing the criminal case despite full and complete settlement and compromise with the victim. In other words, the High Court must consider whether it would be unfair or contrary to the interest of justice to continue with the criminal proceeding or continuation of the criminal proceeding would tantamount to abuse of process of law despite settlement and compromise between the victim and the wrongdoer and whether to secure the ends of justice, it is appropriate that the criminal case is put to an end and if the answer to the above question(s) is in the affirmative, the High Court shall be well within its jurisdiction to quash the criminal proceeding.

Subsequent to that decision, one similar matter as that of the present case, came before the Hon''ble Supreme Court in a case of "Central Bureau of Investigation v. Jagjit Singh" (supra). In that case also, the accused had obtained loan on the basis of forged document. However, that matter was compromised when the payment was made and, therefore, the respondent of that case when moved before the Calcutta High Court, it was quashed. Being aggrieved with that order, the CBI moved before the Supreme Court and the Hon''ble Supreme Court, having regard to the observations made in the case of "Giyan Singh" (supra) did find the order passed by the Hon''ble Calcutta High Court unsustainable after holding that such type of case would have harmful effect on the public and, thereby, the society would suffer. Similar is the case here and, thereby, the order taking cognizance never warrants to be quashed.

In the result, this application stands dismissed.