BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Shree Chandrashekhar, CJ. and Gautam A. Ankhad, J.
GTL Infrastructure Limited – Petitioner
versus
Central Bureau of Investigation and Anr. – Respondents
Writ Petition No. 3632 of 2024
Decided on 20.2.2026
(A) Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 – Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) – Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 120B and 420 – Constitution of India – Article 226 read with Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (Corresponding to Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 – Financial impropriety and irregularity – CBI could not identify accused in course of Preliminary Enquiry and First Information Report has been lodged against unknown – This is also of equal importance that CBI is unable to identify an accused even today – Source information which triggered Preliminary Enquiry did not provide adequate materials and First Information Report was not lodged on that basis – There is no statement in First Information Report that witnesses stated anything about role played by GTLIL and collusion or conspiracy between GTLIL and vendor-entities or bank officials – Police cannot proceed to investigate a case where there is no criminality or a legal bar – Bank officials of consortium banks were discharging their official duties and there is no allegation that they violated any provision under extant circular, guidelines or rules with dishonest intention – Whole case of CBI seems to have been built on Forensic Audit Report which did not confirm any diversion of funds – Allegation of overpricing of shares and decision of consortium of banks to accept proposal cannot be examined with standpoint of Investigating Agency – FIR quashed. (Paras 9, 10, 14, 16 and 21)
(B) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Sections 482 [Section 528] – Quashing – Registration of a crime by Police entails serious consequences – It has adverse impact on business deals, present or future, of any business entity – It would certainly impact commercial transactions and business entity may be debarred from participating in any government contract – It may diminish its value with banks, financial institutions and private arrangements with other government or private entities – While all these aspects may not be a determinative factor but, inquiry and investigation in a criminal case cannot go on only for reason that Police has unfettered powers to investigate a crime. (Para 17)
Result: Writ Petition allowed.
JUDGMENT
Shree Chandrashekhar, CJ.—The GTL Infrastructure Limited (in short, GTLIL) which is a public limited company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 seeks quashing of the First Information Report registered on 16th August 2023 by the Central Bureau of Investigation (in short, CBI) vide RC2192023E0022 alleging commission of the offence under section 120-B read with section 420 of the Indian Penal Code and section 13(2) read with section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. It has invoked the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (corresponding to section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023). This First Information Report is registered against the GTLIL, unknown public servants and unknown others.
2. On the basis of the information dated 14th July 2021, a Preliminary Enquiry vide PE 2192022E0001 was initiated by the CBI to inquire into the financial impropriety and irregularity by the GTLIL in availing credit facilities from the consortium of 19 banks and financial institutions. The basis for registering the FIR against the GTLIL and the unknown public servants is said to be the facts revealed in course of the Preliminary Enquiry. It is stated that the GTLIL was referred for the Corporate Debt Restructuring (in short, “CDR”) upon expressing its inability to service interest and pay installments on the credit facilities availed by it from various banks and financial institutions and its inability to raise equities and shortfall in the revenues. The CDR approved package for restructuring dated 23rd December 2011 did not work out and the lender banks decided in the year 2016 to invoke the Strategic Debt Restructuring (in short, SDR) and out of a total loan of Rs.11,263 crores, the debt of Rs.7,200 crores was converted into equity shares and the balance amount of Rs.4063 crores was to be paid to the lender banks and financial institutions. According to the CBI, the GTLIL diverted a substantial amount of the loan funds through different vendors which were not repaid and goods were not supplied but, later on, written off. This is a fact revealed during the Preliminary Enquiry that the funds so diverted through the vendors were invested in M/s. European Projects and Aviation Ltd. (in short EPAL) or M/s. Chennai Network Infrastructure Limited (in short, CNIL) or GTLIL during the period 2011-2012 to 2013-2014. As on 30th June 2018, the GTLIL had outstanding dues of Rs. 4063.31 crores and this debt was proposed to be assigned to M/s. Edelweiss Asset Reconstruction Company (in short, EARC) but the proposal of assignment of the said debt to the EARC was not accepted by the Canara Bank which dissented on the ground that there was no fresh valuation of the hypothecated/mortgaged assets of the GTLIL to justify the offer of Rs. 2354 crores by the EARC. The total depreciated value of the plants and equipment of the GTLIL as on 31st March 2018 was Rs. 7944.50 crores and it had 27729 Telecom towers with useful life of 35 years which could be valued at Rs. 10330 crores considering the similar deals between M/s. ATC Telecom Infrastructure and M/s. Vodafone India Ltd. The Preliminary Enquiry further revealed that huge wrongful loss was caused to the banks on account of the assignment of 79.3% outstanding dues valued at Rs. 3224 crores by 13 lender banks including the Union Bank of India for a consideration of approximately Rs.1867 crores. Though the lender banks were holding 64.97% equity in the GTLIL by way of 1212.17 crores shares, the lender banks did not sell their equity in block deal while assigning the debt to the EARC nor did they proceed against the GTLIL under the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Institutions and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (in short, SARFAESI Act) to secure their loan from the collateral securities which has depreciated value of about Rs.7944.50 crores. On
Hridaya Ranjan Prasad Verma and Ors. v. State of Bihar and Anr.
Financial impropriety and irregularity – Allegation of overpricing of shares and decision of consortium of banks to accept proposal cannot be examined with standpoint of Investigating Agency.
FIR alleging bank loan fraud quashed absent prima facie dishonest intention at inception, forensic audits/bank decisions confirming no diversion, recoveries/repayments evidencing bona fides, preventi....
Criminal conspiracy in terms of Section 120-B of the Code is an independent offence. It is punishable separately.
The court established that the transfer of investigation to the CBI is not routine and should only occur in exceptional circumstances to maintain public confidence in the investigation process.
In tender-related fraud cases, a conspiracy can be inferred from circumstantial evidence, allowing for charge framing even without direct evidence.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.