Repayment of dues to the bank does not absolve the criminal liability of the accused, especially in cases of economic offences with societal impact. Once the trial has commenced in a criminal case, a petition to quash the trial proceedings would not lie.

The petitioner has preferred the instant Crl. O.P. No. 6029 of 2012 in calling for the records in C.C. No. 15007 of 2008 from the file of the Court of Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai and to quash the same.

2. Heard the Learned counsel for the Petitioners/Accused 1, 2, 3 & 5 and the Learned Special Public Prosecutor for CBI Cases appearing on behalf of the First Respondent as well as the Learned counsel for the Second Respondent.

3. According to the Petitioners, the First Respondent/State led by the Additional Superintendent of Police, CBI, BS & FC, Bangalore had lodged a complaint in C.C.No.15007 of 2008 against them before the Learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai in respect of the alleged offences under Section 120 B r/w.420, 468, 471 and 474 of IPC on the allegation that they with a criminal conspiracy to cheat the Defacto Complainant by using forged documents as genuine, had induced the Second Respondent/General Manager & Chief Vigilance Officer, Canara Bank, Vigilance Section, Head Office Annexe, Bangalore to part with funds and cheated to the extent of Rs.13 Crores, of which, Rs.10.77 Crores was outstanding as on 22.02.2007.

4. It is represented on behalf of the Petitioners that the former General Manager of the Second Respondent/Canara Bank, Teynampet Branch, Chennai was also included as one of the accused and he died later. As such, he was not charge sheeted by the prosecution.

5. Further, a recovery proceedings under SARFAESI Act, 2002 in O.A. No. 1547 of 2007 before the Debts Recovery Tribunal-I at Chennai was initiated and a sum of Rs.10,50,00,000/- was recovered by selling the Petitioners' property. That apart, a sum of Rs.2,50,00,000/- was also deposited by the Petitioners in S.A. No. 732 of 2007 before the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Chennai. It is to be noted that the Second Respondent had attached the aforesaid amount.

6. The core contention raised on behalf of the Petitioners in the grounds of Crl. O.P. No. 6029 of 2012 is that the allegation of cheating in respect of an offence under Section 420 IPC cannot be sustained because of the facts that the Defacto Complainant i.e., the Second Respondent had recovered the entire amount payable by the Petitioners.

7. The other plea taken on behalf of the Petitioners (as seen from the grounds) is that they cannot be charged in respect of an offence under Section 420 of IPC, inasmuch as they had not at all fraudulently or dishonestly induced the Second Respondent to advance the loan amount. Moreover, the Petitioners had not done any harm to the Second Respondent's loan amount advanced to them which was duly recovered by the Second Respondent by selling their property under SARFAESI Act, 2002.

8. It transpires that the Petitioners have also taken a stand that the purported offences under Sections 468, 471, 474 of IPC, are liable to be quashed by this Court because of the reason that the Defacto Complainant viz., the Second Respondent had not sustained any financial loss due to alleged forgery committed by the Petitioners. Also that, they had not at all cheated the Second Respondent by producing alleged forged documents in view of the fact that the entire loan amount was released by selling the properties mortgaged by the Petitioners.

9. On behalf of the Petitioners, a view is taken that the properties secured by the Bank for advancing the loan amount were sold under the SARFAESI Act and a considerable sum was realised by the Defacto Complainant through the sale proceeds of the mortgaged property.

10. At this stage, a cursory glance of the ground (g) taken by the Petitioners in the present Criminal Original Petition points out that 'all the offences alleged against the Petitioners are compoundable and since the Defacto Complainant has almost recovered the entire dues from the Petitioners as on date, the complaint is liable to be quashed.

11. Conversely, it is the submission of the Learned Special Public Prosecutor f