The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for compliance with legal procedures, including obtaining sanctions and adhering to court orders, before registering an FIR/RC.

JUDGMENT

CRL.M.A. 22227/2023 (exemption)

1. Allowed, subject to all just exemptions.

2. Application stands disposed of.

W.P.(CRL) 2365/2023 & CRL.M.A. 22226/2023

3. By way of the present petition the petitioners are seeking issuance of Writ of Mandamus quashing the impugned FIR/RC bearing no.RC0592022A0011 dated 30.09.2022 registered under Section 406/420/468/471/120-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 13(2)/13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and all the proceedings emanating therefrom.

4. The petition has been taken up for final hearing with the consent of the learned counsels appearing for the parties.

5. The facts reveal that the aforesaid FIR was registered on the complaint made by Indian Bank. As per FIR, the petitioner no.1 was the Managing Director of one M/s Hi Tech Grain Processing Pvt. Ltd. [HTGPPL], which was engaged in the business of processing various kinds of pulses and grains. As per Forensic Audit, the said HTGPPL while enjoying a credit of Rs.305 Cr. from a consortium of banks, siphoned funds and defrauded the Indian Bank situated at 17, Parliament Street, New Delhi to the tune of Rs.11.36 Cr. Thereafter HTGPPL was declared as a Non-Performing Asset on 29.05.2018.

6. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the impugned FIR has been registered in non-compliance of the CVC Circular's dated 06.01.2022 and 14.03.2022 providing for recommendation of the Advisory Board of Banking frauds [ABBF], which is the governing body over the CBI. He also submits that no offence under Section 13(1)(d) of The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 [PC Act] is made out as no allegations have been levelled against a public servant in the impugned FIR and in any event, the said Section 13(1)(d) of the PC Act has itself been removed from the Statute and thus the registration of the RC under the said provision is itself an abuse of the process of law.

7. He further submits that the impugned FIR/RC was registered without grant of any sanction under Section 17A of the PC Act and as the HTGPPL was declared fraud by Indian Bank without following the due procedure of law, the entire basis of registration of the impugned FIR/RC is itself bad. He then submits that as per settled principle of law, when the base is removed, the superstructure itself falls.

8. He also submits that the registration of the FIR/RC was illegal as there was an order dated 20.07.2020 of stay of operation in favour of HTGPPL passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.(C) 4317/2020 titled "Naresh Kumar Mittal & Anr vs. Reserve Bank Of India & Ors.". He then submits that though the respondent/CBI was not a party but the complainant Bank involved was very much a party therein. He also submits that the said order took note of the 7th meeting dated 01.07.2020 of Committee of Creditors, wherein the complainant Bank was a party. He, thus, submits that the complainant Bank was aware of the said order at the time of registration the present FIR/RC as it was very much in existence at the time of registration of the FIR. In view thereof, he further submits that the said order was passed after recording the aforesaid wherein the complainant Bank herein was a party and wherein all the respondents, including the complainant Bank, were directed not to take any further steps or actions which were prejudicial to the interest of the petitioner therein, i.e. the petitioner no.1 before this Court. He submits that, therefore, the registration of the FIR/RC is bad in law. Relevant extracts of the said order are as under:

"3......However, in the 7th meeting of COC on 01.07.2020, respondents No.2, 3 and 4 informed that they have declared the account in question as a fraud.

xxx.......

6. xxx Accordingly, in view of the afore-noted order of this court. Respondents No.2 to 8 shall not take any further steps or actions prejudicial to the petitioners based upon the account in question being declared fraud until the next date of hearing."

9.