SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2013 Supreme(Del) 1494

High Court of Delhi
SUNITA GUPTA, J.
Vivek Sinha
Versus
CBI & Another
CRL.M.C. No. 1828 of 2013 & Crl. M.A. No. 5652 of 2013
Decided On : 11-11-2013

Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner:Ajay Burman, Karan Burman, Advocates.
For the Respondents:Narender Mann, Sp. P.P., R3, Ashish Rana, Advocate.

Mere payment of dues to the bank does not entitle the petitioner to get the FIR quashed. The court must consider whether it would be unfair or contrary to the interest of justice to continue with the criminal proceedings and whether continuation of the criminal proceedings would tantamount to abuse of process of law.

Headnote:

Quashing of FIR - Criminal Conspiracy - Section 482 Cr.P.C - 120B IPC, 420 IPC, 13(1)(d) PC Act - The court discussed the scope and ambit of inherent powers of the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C and held that the mere payment of dues to the bank does not entitle the petitioner to get the FIR quashed. The charge sheet prima facie discloses the commission of offences for which the petitioner has been charged. The court found that it would not be unfair or contrary to the interest of justice to continue with the criminal proceedings and continuation of the criminal proceedings would not tantamount to abuse of process of law. Therefore, the petition seeking quashing of the FIR was dismissed.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner sought quashing of RC No.219/2011/E0003 and all consequent proceedings pending in the Court of Special Judge CBI, New Delhi primarily on the ground that the bank does not wish to pursue the matter any further and reached an amicable settlement to mutually acceptable terms and conditions. The petitioner was charged for offences punishable under Section 120 B IPC read with Section 420 IPC and Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the PC Act and substantive offences thereof.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the charge sheet prima facie discloses the commission of offences for which the petitioner has been charged. The court held that it would not be unfair or contrary to the interest of justice to continue with the criminal proceedings and continuation of the criminal proceedings would not tantamount to abuse of process of law. Therefore, the petition seeking quashing of the FIR was dismissed.

Issues: The main issue was whether the court should exercise its discretion by quashing the FIR based on the settlement reached between the petitioner and the bank, and whether the charge sheet prima facie discloses the commission of offences for which the petitioner has been charged.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the mere payment of dues to the bank does not entitle the petitioner to get the FIR quashed. It further held that it would not be unfair or contrary to the interest of justice to continue with the criminal proceedings and continuation of the criminal proceedings would not tantamount to abuse of process of law.

Final Decision: The petition seeking quashing of the FIR was dismissed.

Judgment :

Sunita Gupta, J.

1. By virtue of this petition u/s 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the petitioner seeks quashing of RC No.219/2011/E0003 and all consequent proceedings pending in the Court of Gurvinder Pal Singh, Special Judge CBI, New Delhi primarily on the ground that the bank does not wish to pursue the matter any further and reached an amicable settlement to mutually acceptable terms and conditions. In terms of the settlement, the entire dues of the bank has been paid. That being so, interference of the Court is essential to prevent abuse of process of Court by exercising inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

2. The petition is opposed by CBI. In reply to the petition, the background of the case was detailed as under:

a) That a Regular case bearing No. RC 219/2011/E/003 was registered on 31.03.2011 on the basis of complaint of Chief Manager, Bank of India, Malai Mandir Branch, R.K. Puram, New Delhi, against the petitioner Vivek Sinha, Prop. of M/s Esoft Informatics, Gurgaon & Director of M/s Esoft Informatics Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon and M/s Nexus Remedies Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon, Deepak Kumar, Director of M/s Esoft Informatics Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon, Ajit R. Kyal, M/s Jain Pharmaceuticals, Cuttack Orissa & Director of M/s Nexus Remedies Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon and Unknown officials of Bank of India.

b) It was alleged that in consideration for grant of the different credit limits, the accused persons executed various security documents, in favour of the bank on 03.10.2008, 18.11.2008, 5.3.2009 and 21.7.2009, as proprietor/Director/Guarantor of M/s Esoft Informatics P.Ltd. & M/s. Nexus Remedies P. Ltd. In addition to grant of the regular credit limits, at the request of the accused persons, the bank purchased 7 cheques issued in favour of M/s Esoft Informatics P. Ltd and M/s Nexus Remedies P. Ltd., without any regular cheque purchase/ discounting limit having been sanctioned, in the account of M/s Esoft Informatics Pvt. Ltd. and M/s Nexus Remedies P. Ltd. The cheques earlier purchased/discounted having returned unpaid. The cheques were discounted beyond the discretionary powers to enable the borrowers to meet their urgent business commitments. The Term Loans and working capital facilities were misappropriated and were not utilized for the sanctioned purposes. The cheques purchased/discounted by the bank in their accounts were returned unpaid and the accused persons did not arrange for repayment of the substantial dues of the Bank. The financial data and stock/book debts statements submitted by the accused persons to the bank were false and bogus and no stocks and other assets were available. The bank suffered a loss to the tune of Rs.2,59,19,132/22, which is the aggregate balance outstanding in all advance accounts.

c) That the Term loans and working capital facilities were misappropriated and were not utilized for the sanctioned purposes and with fraudulent intention accused submitted false information to the bank. Even after the cheques purchased/discounted by the bank in their accounts were returned unpaid, the accused persons did not arrange for repayment of the substantial dues to the bank. Allegedly, the cheques were discounted/purchased by accused bank officials A.K. Chaturvedi, A3 and Kamaljeet Singh, A4 dishonestly and fraudulently in criminal conspiracy with other co-accused persons for which A3 and A4 had no discretionary powers.

d) That on completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed on 12.04.2012 against the arraigned accused for offences punishable under Section 120 B IPC read with Section 420 IPC and Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the PC Act and substantive offences thereof in the Court of Special Judge, Patiala House, New Delhi and permission was sought for further investigation against other suspects.

e) That cognizance of offences was taken on 02.07.2012 by Ld. Special Judge, CBI, Patiala House Court, New Delhi and notices/summons were issued against all accused persons. Exc


























































Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top