The court emphasized that parties involved in causing loss to public institutions through connivance and fraudulent means are not entitled to leniency, even if settlements have been reached.

SURESH KAIT, J:

1. Before addressing the respective contentions and factual matrix, it would be appropriate to mention here that by this common order, both the petitions are being dealt.

2. Vide order dated 29.08.2011, this Court has passed the following order:-

“1. Mr. Rakesh Khanna, ld. senior counsel for the petitioners submits that FIR No.RC-0712009(E) 0002 dated 13.02.2009 at PS EOW-II was registered under Section 120-B Indian Penal Code, 1860 read with Section 420, 467, 468, 471 Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) Prevention of Corruption Act against the petitioners.

2. Ld. Sr. counsel further submits that respondent No.2 UCO Bank has compromised with the petitioners on 30.11.2009 and the respondent No.2 has no objection if the aforesaid FIR is quashed.

3. On the last date of hearing learned counsel for the bank appeared and submitted that they have received the entire amount from the petitioners and the matter has already been compromised.

4. Ld. counsel for the respondent Bank further submit that they do not want to pursue the case further.

5. Ld. counsel for CBI submits that the petitioners may have cleared the entire amount to the bank, even then the present FIR cannot be quashed in the light of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Sushil Suri Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation & Anr. (2011) 5 SCC 708.

6. Ld. counsel for CBI further submits that the question before the Hon’ble Supreme Court was whether under Section 482 Cr.P.C., FIR can be quashed.

7. While dismissing the above stated case, having regard to the modus operandi, process of charge-sheet, therefore, the Supreme Court observed that this is not a fit case for exercise of power under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

8. Ld. counsel for the petitioner submits that before taking the decision, the Court has to see the facts of the case in Sushil Suri(supra) as referred in para No.3 of the same judgment as under :

“3.The relevant portion of the FIR reads thus:

“That in June 1999, S/Sh. K.B. Suri, Sushil Suri and Smt. Kanta Suri, the Executive Directors of M/s. Morepen Labs Ltd. having their office at 416-418, Antriksh Bhawan (sic), 22, K.G. Marg, New Delhi, conspired together and in furtherance of the said criminal conspiracy they, dishonestly and fraudulently made an application to Punjab and Sind Bank, Connaught Place, New Delhi for Hire-Purchase Finance to the tune of Rs.300 Lacs, by submitting fake and forged purchase orders, invoices and bills relating to supply of machineries and equipments to be installed in their factory/works situated in Distt. Solan (HP). That the above Executive Directors of the company, dishonestly, fraudulently and in conspiracy with other accused persons submitted to the bank, fake and forged invoices of fictitious/non-existent supplier i.e. M/s. R.K. Engineers, M/s. Teem Metals Pvt. Ltd. and M/s. Malson Impex, made accommodation payments representing as genuine advance payments to suppliers and thereby caused the bank to release funds to the tune of Rs.300 lacs towards cost of machineries and equipments and pay orders in various amounts issued by the bank for the purpose of making payments to suppliers. These amounts were then fraudulently deposited in several fictitious accounts of S/Sh. Sanjay Malik and Bipin Kakkar at Corporation Bank and Canara Bank and encashed. The bank finance raised by the company on the pretext of procurement of machineries and equipments were not used for the purpose stated in the application for loan, instead the bank loan was diverted by the above Executive Directors, in collusion with S/Sh. Sanjay Malik and Bipin Kakkar, for other undisclosed non-business purposes. That during the year 1998 also the above Executive Directors of M/s. Morepen Labs Ltd. had adopted a similar modus-operandi in collusion with some other unknown persons/Chartered Accountants and applied for bank finance to the tune of Rs.200 lacs for purchase of machineries and equipments with an