The inherent power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. should not be used to stifle a legitimate prosecution, especially in cases involving serious charges such as conspiracy, cheating, forgery, and abuse of official position.

1. The Petitioners/A2 to A4, have focussed the instant Criminal Original Petition praying for passing of an order by this Court in calling for the records in C.C.No.30 of 2004 on the file of the Learned 11th Additional Special Judge for CBI Cases, Chennai.

Petitioners' Contentions:

2. According to the Learned Counsel for the Petitioners/A2 to A4, the charges framed against the Petitioners/A2-A4 are that in the year 2001, they had entered into a conspiracy with the 1st Accused/S.P.Damodaran to cheat Union Bank and in pursuance of the same obtained loans in excess of the limits sanctioned to them, that in the process, the relative sanction advice Ex.P6 in the Bank was forged, that payment vouchers Exs.P15 to P18 were also forged and that the Bank suffered wrongful loss to the tune of Rs.23 lakhs and resultantly the Petitioners/Accused have wrongfully gained. Accordingly, they were charged under Sections 120-B, 420, 467, 467 r/w 471 IPC. As regards, A1/public servant is concerned, apart from the above charges, he is charged in respect of offences under Sections 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

3. The Learned Counsel for the Petitioners/Accused urges before this Court that as per D-6, the full amount was paid by the Petitioners.

4. Advancing the arguments, the Learned Counsel for the Petitioners submits that the main charge levelled against the Petitioners is one of cheating under Section 420 of IPC, which is compoundable in nature.

5. Expatiating his contention, the Learned Counsel for the Petitioners, vehemently projects an argument that there was no charge that any of the Petitioners had committed the offence of forgery or of conspiracy with A1 to commit the criminal misconduct.

6. That apart, the Learned Counsel for the Petitioners brings it to the notice of this Court that even before filing of the charge sheet in the present case, out of total sum of Rs.22.50 Lakhs, a sum of Rs.19 Lakhs was paid by the Petitioners to the Bank and D-7 series would prove the remittance in this regard.

7. The Learned Counsel for the Petitioners contends that the present case is one where crime was registered by the Respondent not on the basis of any complaint by the Bank, but, suo motu, by the Respondent/CBI. The Learned Counsel for the Petitioners submits that the Petitioners/Accused cannot go before the trial Court and seek the relief of compounding in view of the fact that there is no original complaint.

8. The Learned Counsel for the Petitioners refers to the judgement of Hon'ble Supreme Court dated 20.08.2008 in Crl.A.No.1302 of 2008 (arising out of SLP (Crl.) No.6355 of 2005) between Nikhil Merchant Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and another, wherein, the dispute between the Company and its Bank was set at rest on the basis of a compromise arrived at between them and the amounts due were paid. Further in the aforesaid judgement, it was also observed that technicality should not be allowed to stand in the way of quashing criminal proceedings. In effect, the plea taken on behalf of the petitioners is that the aforesaid judgement in Crl.A.No.1302 of 2008, squarely applies to the facts of the present case and accordingly, they seek for quashing the proceedings in C.C.No.30 of 2004, on the file of the trial Court.

9. The Learned Counsel for the Petitioners/Accused relies on the judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court dated 28.02.2014 in Crl.A.No.517 of 2014 (arising out of SLP (Crl.) No.6138 of 2006) between CBI, ACB, Mumbai Vs. Narendra Lal Jain & Others, wherein, in paragraph No.11, it is observed as follows:

“In the present case, having regard to the fact that the liability to make good the monetary loss suffered by the bank had been mutually settled between the parties and the accused had accepted the liability in this regard, the High Court had thought it fit to invoke its power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. We do not see how such exercise of power can be faulted or held to be erroneous. Section 482