Back
2015 Supreme(Mad) 2953
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
A. SELVAM, J.
T.R. Narayanan - Petitioner
Vs.
State rep. by The Inspector of Police Central Bureau of Investigation SCB, Chennai - Respondent
Criminal Original Petition No.8851 of 2014 and M.P.Nos.1 and 2 of 2014
Decided On : 23-09-2015
For petitioner: Mr. Abudu Kumar Rajarathinam for Mr. S.Ashok Kumar
For respondents: Mr. K. Srinivasan, Spl.PP for CBI
The main legal point established is that the absence of sanction under Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the lack of mala fide intent can be grounds to quash criminal proceedings.
Headnote:
Section 482 - Quashing of Criminal Proceedings - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Sections 120(B), 420, 468, 471 IPC, Section 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a Chief Manager at a bank, sought to quash criminal proceedings against him for alleged involvement in a conspiracy to cheat the bank by submitting false documents to obtain overdraft facilities.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that no sanction had been obtained to prosecute the petitioner and that there were no grounds to proceed against him, as he had pointed out the defects in the loan applications and no mala fide intent was found on his part.
Issues: The main issues were whether sanction was required to prosecute the petitioner and whether there were grounds to proceed against him in the criminal proceedings.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the requirement of sanction under Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the absence of mala fide intent on the part of the petitioner to quash the proceedings against him.
Final Decision: The court allowed the petition and quashed the criminal proceedings against the petitioner.
This criminal original petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 praying to call for the records relating to Calendar Case No.42 of 2013, pending on the file of the XI Additional City Civil & Sessions Judge cum Special Judge for CBI Cases, Chennai and quash the same.
2. It is averred in the petition that the petitioner has been arrayed as fourth accused in C.C.No.42 of 2013. The petitioner and one A.L.Nagarathinam have scrutinized the loan papers and forwarded the same to the Indian Bank Circle Office, Chennai -8. The Circle Office, after scrutinising loan papers and its documents, has forwarded the same to the General Manager of the Bank for sanction. One of the prosecution witnesses by name K.B. Nagendra Murthy (General Manager) after having due satisfaction has granted sanction for over draft facilities to the tune of Rs.250 lakhs (Rupees Two hundred and fifty lakhs). The respondent has conducted investigation and ultimately, filed a final report under Sections 120 (B) r/w 420, 468 and 471 IPC and Section 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. It is further averred in the petition that the petitioner has not done any one of the offences mentioned in the final report and in the said circumstances, the present petition has been filed for getting the relief sought for therein.
3. On the side of the respondent, a detailed counter has been filed wherein it is contended interalia that all the averments made in the petition are false and since the petitioner and others are facing a charge under Section 120(B), IPC along with other sections of law, it is not possible to quash the proceedings initiated against the petitioner and there is no merit in the petition and the same deserves to be dismissed.
4. The only point that comes up for consideration in the present criminal original petition is as to whether the proceeding in C.C.No.42 of 2013 against the petitioner is liable to be quashed?
5. The case of the prosecution is that a Company by name M/s.Eventus Integrated Management Private Ltd., Chennai represented by its Managing Directors Mr. Suresh Pillai and Mrs. Sandhya Verma entered into criminal conspiracy during the year 2006 with some unknown bank officials and thereby, cheated the Indian Bank by way of submitting glossy, unsigned and inflated balance sheets to avail overdraft facilities of Rs.250 lakhs and thereby, caused wrongful loss to the concerned bank. The concerned Company has been arrayed as first accused and the Managing Directors have been shown as accused Nos.2 and 3. The Chief Manager has been arrayed as fourth accused. Under the said circumstances, all the accused have committed the offences mentioned in the final report.
6. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has culled out the following points in support of the contentions raised in the petition:
(i) No sanction has been obtained under Section 197, Cr.P.C., and (ii) One of the proposed accused by name Nagarathinam has not been prosecuted, since sanction has been refused.
7. The learned Special Public Prosecutor has contended with great vehemence to the effect that several materials are available so as to proceed further against the petitioner and therefore, the relief sought for in the present petition cannot be granted.
8. Before contemplating the rival submissions made on either side, the Court has to look into some relevant materials available in final report.
9. In one of the paragraphs of final report it is mentioned like thus:
"The Chief Manager (A4) vide his letter dated 28.10.2006 replied to GM that they verified the suit list of CIBIL list and found the companies name did not find figure. T.R. Narayanan (A4) further replied that the Company submitted a letter for getting the Corporate Guarantee of M/s Fountain Head but futher communicated that SBI was not willing to give NOC and further the Fountain Head Account would be operated through MGT Bank. Finally the proposal was app
