At the stage of framing charges, the court must exercise its judicial mind and consider the material placed before it comprehensively before arriving at the conclusion that there is sufficient ground to proceed against the accused. Strong suspicion is sufficient at the stage of framing charges.

JUDGMENT :

Subramonium Prasad, J.

1. This petition has been filed under Section filed under Section 397 Cr.P.C. read with Section 482 Cr.P.C. challenging the chargesheet dated 22.03.2019 filed by the Respondent herein under Sections 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter, “IPC”) read with Section 420 IPC, Section 471 IPC, and Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter, “PC Act”) as well as the Order on charge dated 27.10.2021 in C.C. 246 of 2019 passed by the Ld. Special Judge, Rouse Avenue District Court Complex, New Delhi.

2. The facts, in brief, leading up to the filing of the petition are as follows:

(a) It is stated that an FIR dated 21.06.2017 had been registered on the basis of written complaint No. ZO/OR/CBI-STF/07/2017-18 dated 01.06.2017 received from one S.K. Mehta, Deputy General Manager, Corporation Bank (hereinafter, “the Bank”), that had been addressed to the Deputy Inspector General of Police, CBI, STF. New Delhi.

(b) Allegations in the said complaint were that accused private person, along with public servants of the Bank, through its proprietorship firm M/s White Metals through its proprietor Sunny Kalra (hereinafter, “the borrower”), had defrauded the Bank, Vasant Kunj branch, to the tune of Rs. 4 crores issued to the said borrower as the same had not been utilised the credit facilities for the purpose for which it had been sanctioned under the Corp Vyapar Overdraft Loan of Rs. 7.6 crores.

(c) It is stated that Sunny Kalra had gotten close to one Robin Davis, the then Branch Manager of the Bank’s Vasant Kunj branch, and that through Davis, he met one A.R.K. Prasad, DGM, and other Zonal Officers, and entered into a criminal conspiracy with them to secure the loan by rendering false documents and information. Robin Davis, while holding a post of Senior Manager at Retail Hub, where all proposals in the retail loan category would be examined, processed and sanctioned, would guide the Due Diligence Agencies in verifying loan proposal papers of borrowers and writing verification reports (Due Diligence Reports).

(d) It is stated that M/s Samadhan Management Services Private Ltd. (Petitioner No. 1 herein) through its authorized signatory, Mr. Amit Aggarwal (Petitioner No. 2 herein) had been engaged by the Bank as a Due Diligence Agency since 19.05.2011. The Petitioner issued a positive Due Diligence Report to Robin Davis with respect to the borrower, however, the same was replete with infirmities as it was found that no proper verification had taken place.

(e) The allegations against the Petitioner firm are that the dishonest verifications conducted by the Petitioner at the behest of Bank personnel and the positive report issued thereafter allowed the borrower to receive an undeserving loan. Moreover, Petitioner No. 2, the authorized signatory, had overseen the entirety of the verifications and was culpable in the conspiracy to ensure that Sunny Kalra and his proprietorship firm obtained the loan through fraudulent means as well.

(f) With the aforementioned findings, chargesheet dated 22.03.2019 was filed without the arrest of the Petitioners, and vide Order dated 27.10.2021, charges were framed against the Petitioner. Aggrieved by the same, the Petitioners have now approached this Court by way of the instant revision petition.

3. Mr. Vinay Kumar Garg, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner, submits that the Petitioner firm had been in the service as a Due Diligence Agency at the Bank since 2011, with the Credit Consultancy Service Agreement being renewed regularly on account of the work being done by the Petitioner firm. He further submits that since 2011, the Petitioner firm has executed over 6000 due diligence activities in the span of almost four years, with no infirmities found in the same.

4. Mr. Garg, the learned Counsel for the Petitioner, states that the standard verification process that is to be conducted by the Petitioner firm is confined to veri