IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI, J.
Anish Agarwal, son of late Dhanraj Agarwal - Petitioner
Versus
Union of India, through Central Bureau of Investigation and Anr. - Opposite Parties
Cr.M.P. No. 2660 of 2021 With Cr.M.P. No. 3140 of 2022 With Cr.M.P. No. 2681 of 2022
Decided On : 22-11-2022
Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Section 420 – Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 482 – Quashing of the entire criminal proceeding – Charge sheet – Appearing on behalf of respondent- Central Bureau of Investigation (C.B.I.) in all three cases as well, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent-Bank of India – In all these cases, a common question of law has been involved and that is why with consent of all parties, these petitions have been heard together – Held, Thus, in the light of above observation of the Hon’ble Supreme Court to investigate on basis of information received on some source has held is not out of the purview of provision of sections 154 and 157 of Code or any other provisions of the Code – Charge sheet has already been submitted and cognizance has also been taken – In light of above discussion, reasons and analysis, no case of interference is made out – Dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
1. Heard Mr. Ajit Kumar, the learned Senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner in Cr.M.P.No.3140 of 2022, Mr. Sumeet Gadodia, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner in Cr.M.P.No.2681 of 2022, Mr. Sanjay Samdarshi, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner in Cr.M.P.No.2660 of 2021, Mr. Anil Kumar, the learned A.S.G.I., appearing on behalf of the respondent- Central Bureau of Investigation (C.B.I.) in all the three cases as well as Mr. Rajeev Kumar Sinha, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent-Bank of India.
2. In all these cases, a common question of law has been involved and that is why with consent of all the parties, these petitions have been heard together.
3. In Cr.M.P.No.2660 of 2021, the prayer is made for quashing of the entire criminal proceeding including the order dated 01.09.2021 passed in connection with R.C.01(S)/2019-EOW-Ranchi, pending before the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate-cum-Special Judicial Magistrate, C.B.I., Ranchi; in Cr.M.P.No.2681 of 2022, the prayer is made for quashing of the entire criminal proceeding arising out of CBI/EOW/Ranchi FIR No.RC0932019S0001 dated 10.01.2019 including the order dated 01.09.2021 in Case No.RC 01(S)/2019-EOW, Ranchi, pending before the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate cum-Special Judicial Magistrate, CBI, Ranchi; and in Cr.M.P. No.3140 of 2022 the prayer is made for quashing of the entire criminal proceeding in connection with CBI/EOW/Ranchi FIR No.RC0932018S0007 dated 16.07.2018 including the order dated 05.07.2021, pending before the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate cum-Special Judicial Magistrate, CBI, Ranchi.
4. The F.I.R. in Cr.M.P.No.2660 of 2021 and Cr.M.P.No.2681 of 2022 was registered alleging therein that Amit Sarawgi, Swati Sarawagi and other accused persons entered into a criminal conspiracy during 2015 to 2018 and in pursuance thereof, obtained loan of Rs.15.00 crores on 29.06.2015 from Bank of India, Ranchi, in the name of accused company, i.e. M/s Badri Kedar Udyog Ltd. for doing wholesale trade/business of cloth and textiles. The loan amount was not used to trading of clothes rather money was diverted to various Shell companies headquarter at Kolkata and subsequently, money was again transferred to the account of M/s Sarawagi Builders and Promoters Pvt. Ltd., Ranchi under the Directorship of the said Amit Sarawagi and Swati Sarawagi. The loan account became NPA on 31.03.2018 with outstanding amount of Rs.12.84 crores due to default in repayment of loan.
5. It has been further alleged that the loan amounts were remitted in the account of shell companies on the basis of bogus/fabricated bills, raised by those companies. Later on, the funds were transferred in the current account of M/s Sarawgi Builders and Promoters Pvt. Ltd., which was a Real Estate Developers and Builders and nowhere connected with the business of clothes and textiles. The forged bills were raised by shell companies, on the basis of which loan amount was transferred from account no.490030110000120 of M/s Shree Badri Kedar Udyog Pvt. Ltd. to various shell companies situated at Kolkata. Most of the shell companies in which money was transferred are not doing any business and situated at the same address, i.e., 6/H/10, Shyampur Street, Kolkata, West Bangal. The name of such shell companies are (i) Nirjhar Saree Trading Pvt. Ltd., (ii) Periwinkle Agencies Pvt. Ltd., (iii) Marvellous Sarees Pvt. Ltd., (iv) Dawkins Suppliers Pvt. Ltd., (v) Evenstar Marketing Pvt. Ltd., (vi) Shitalmay Distributors Pvt. Ltd., (vii) Afterlink Vinimay Pvt. Ltd., (viii) Musty Distributors Pvt. Ltd. Thereafter, money was re-transferred from these shell companies to the account of M/s Sarawagi Builders Pvt. Ltd., Ranchi in which Amit Sarawgi and his wife Swati Sarawgi are Directors.
6. It has also been alleged that loan was sanctioned against collateral security in the form of stocks and book debts, flat, land and building.
Fertico Mktg. & Investment (P) Ltd. v. CBI
H.N. Rishbud v. State of Delhi
State of Karnataka v. Kuppuswamy Gownder
Union of India v. Prakash P. Hinduja
H.N. Rishbud v. State of Delhi
Union of India v. Prakash P. Hinduja
Prakash P. Hinduja v. Union of India
Kanwal Tanuj v. State of Bihar
A.R. Antulay v. Ramdas Sriniwas Nayak
State of Haryana v. Ch. Bhajan Lal
Ashok Tshering Bhutia v. State of Sikkim
H.N. Rishbud v. State of Delhi
Khandu Sonu Dhobi v. State of Maharashtra
State of M.P. v. Ramesh C. Sharma
State of M.P. v. Virender Kumar Tripathi
State (Inspector of Police) v. Surya Sankaram Karri
State of Orissa v. Mrutunjaya Panda
Shankerbhai Laljibhai Rot v. State of Gujarat
Parkash Singh Badal v. State of Punjab
M.C. Mehta (Taj Corridor Scam) v. Union of India
State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal
State represented by Inspector of Police, Chennai v. N.S. Gnaneswaran
Nirmal Singh Kahlon v. State of Punjab
State of U.P. v. Bhagwant Kishore Joshi
The Reserve Bank of India's guidelines do not confer jurisdiction upon the CBI to investigate bank fraud without prior state consent as mandated by the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act.
State consent under DSPE Act prior to FIR registration validates CBI investigation despite earlier preliminary verification; no quashing of proceedings post charge-sheet and cognizance absent miscarr....
The accused has no right to a hearing before the registration of an FIR, and anyone can initiate criminal proceedings unless explicitly barred by law.
Criminal conspiracy in terms of Section 120-B of the Code is an independent offence. It is punishable separately.
Court upheld the FIR alleging bribery against a public servant, emphasizing the necessity of substantial evidence for prosecution, rejecting claims of mala fides and ensuring adherence to procedural ....
The court emphasized that successive FIRs regarding the same incident are impermissible and quashed the FIR based on concealment of previous complaints and forum shopping, affirming the requirement o....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.