Serious economic offences, such as forgery and corruption, cannot be quashed based on private settlements due to their impact on society and public interest.

JUDGMENT :

Rakesh Kainthla, J.

1. The present petition has been filed for quashing the FIR No. RC0962016A0004, dated 23.6.2016, for the commission of offences punishable under Section 120-B read with Sections 420 , 405, 467, 468 & 471 of IPC and Section 13 (2) read with Section 13 (1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and subsequent proceedings arising out of the FIR on the basis of the compromise. It has been asserted that the petitioner has amicably resolved the issue with respondent no. 2 and respondent no. 2 has issued a certificate that no amount is to be recovered from M/s Joya Resort and Hotel. The transactions between the petitioner and respondent were commercial and no criminality is attached to it. Respondent No. 2 has initiated steps for the withdrawal of the recovery suit pending before the Debt Recovery Tribunal, Chandigarh. Hence, it has been prayed that the present petition be allowed and the FIR be quashed as per the compromise.

2. Respondent No.1-CBI filed a reply asserting that the FIR was registered for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 120-B, 405, 420, 467, 468 & 471 of IPC and Section 13 (2) read with Section 13 (1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act against the petitioner, respondent no. 3, respondent no. 6 and unknown officials of Central Bank of India. As per the complaint, petitioner and respondent no. 3 entered into a criminal conspiracy with unknown officials of the Central Bank of India. They availed a Term Loan of Rs.155.00 lacs and a Cash Credit Limit of Rs. 225.00 lacs for the construction of the hotel and resort in the name of Joya Resort and Hotel. An amount of Rs.125.00 lacs was released based on fake/forged bills/invoices to justify the utilization of the amount. They invested only Rs.20-25 lacs on the project and diverted the rest of the amount. Respondent No. 6 availed a limit of Rs.145.00 lacs in the name of his company. He did not repay the amount and the account was declared as a non-performing asset with an outstanding balance of Rs.165.00 lacs. CBI conducted the investigation and found that Atul Chawla and Gunjan Verma, the then Assistant Managers and Respondent No. 5, the then Senior Manager of Central Bank of India prepared an executive brief recommending the sanction of a Cash Credit Limit of Rs.225.00 lacs with the margin of borrowers as 25% to be renewed within one year, a term loan of Rs.155.00 lacs with the margin of borrowers as 37.33% repayable in 78 equated monthly instalments. The amount was to be drawn in four quarters. The petitioner in connivance with other accused submitted fake/forged bills/invoices/receipts for different amounts to justify the utilization of the fund. Umesh Verma disclosed in his statement under Section 164(2) of Cr.P.C. that respondent no.6 had told him about availing the loan and he was shown as the contractor. He opened an account. Money was transferred into his account. Rs.47.00 lacs were withdrawn by petitioner and respondent no. 3 through cheques. Rs.78.00 lacs was transferred to the account of Umesh Verma, who handed over the entire money to respondent No.6. The loan was sanctioned and disbursed without the recommendation of any bank official. The amount was not transferred to suppliers/vendors as per the terms and conditions. No certificate was obtained. The valuation of the construction was found to be Rs.40.00 lacs and M.R. Sharma, who carried out the construction, stated that an amount of Rs.48.00 lacs was spent by him. Therefore, the charge sheet was filed before the Court. The petition is not maintainable. It is not a deal between the private financial institute and the accused. Allegations of forgery and corruption have been