The power under Section 482 of the Code should be sparingly used, especially in cases involving serious offences with societal impact, and the nature and gravity of the crime must be considered before quashing proceedings based on settlement.

1. This petition is filed to call for the entire records pending in C.C.No.4 of 2008 on the file of the XI Additional Special Judge for CBI cases relating to Banks and financial Institutions, Chennai-600 001 and quash the same.

2. The petitioner is arrayed as A3 in R.C.No.2 (A) of 2006 which is now pending in C.C.No.4 of 2008 on the file of the XI Additional Special Judge for CBI Cases relating to Banks and Financial Institutions, Chennai.

3. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner is one of the Directors of M/s.Suasa Project Infrastructure Development Company Pvt.Ltd., and the Company applied for Secured Over Draft to the tune of Rs.15 lakhs in the Sowcarpet Branch of Andhra bank, Chennai and it was sanctioned on the basis of 50% Books of Accounts and on the petitioner’s guarantee as well as other Director viz., Hari Sesha Reddy. The petitioner has not offered forged documents to the Bank. Loan was repaid to the Bank fully and the account was closed on 20.11.2004 itself. The discharge petition in Crl.MP.No.44/2009 was dismissed by the XI Additional Special Judge for CBI cases relating to Banks and Financial Institutions, Chennai on 16.11.2009 under misconceived facts and law.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that he availed the Bank loan much earlier on 09.01.2004. Subsequently because the surety were absconding, charge-sheet was filed against this petitioner and other accused.

5. The main contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that even prior to filing of the FIR, i.e, on 06.01.2016, he repaid entire loan amount and closed loan account on 29.12.2005 itself. Since even much prior to filing of FIR, the loan availed by the petitioners were repaid, as on the date of filing of FIR, no case is made out. Therefore, he has placed reliance on the judgment of Harmanpreet Singh Ahluwalia and others Vs. State of Punjab and others reported in (2009) 7 SCC 712.

6. Learned Special Public Prosecutor would submit that the petitioner who is arrayed as A3 along with others stood charged for the offences punishable under Sections 120-B, 420, 419, 467, 468 and 471 IPC and Sections 13(2) r/w. 13(1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The petitioner conspired with others cheated Andhra Bank, Sow carpet Branch, Chennai and in pursuance of the same, opened the current account in the name of 11 companies and the same was floated by A3 to A16. But actually the said companies were not doing business as projected. These companies were floated only for the purpose of obtaining credit facilities from the bank. This petitioner along with others forged property documents in the bank and introduced A20 who does not have landed property of her own. She was impersonated and signed the guarantee agreement and other bank documents for sanction of SOD limit of Rs.15 lakhs to the company. This petitioner/A3 had impersonated and cheated the bank and hence, subsequent re-payment of the loan will not take away the offence. He would submit that the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held in the case of Narinder Singh & Others Vs. State of Punjab & Another reported in CDJ 2014 SC 248 wherein certain guidelines have been given which reads as follows:

31. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we sum up and lay down the following principles by which the High Court would be guided in giving adequate treatment to the settlement between the parties and exercising its power under Section 482 of the Code while accepting the settlement and quashing the proceedings or refusing to accept the settlement with direction to continue with the criminal proceedings:

(I) Power conferred under Section 482 of the Code is to be distinguished from the power which lies in the Court to compound the offences under Section 320 of the Code. No doubt, under Section 482 of the Code, the High Court has inherent power to quash the criminal proceedings even in those cases which are not compoundable, where the parties have settled the matter betw