Settlement of loan amount prior to filing of FIR does not necessarily warrant quashing of criminal proceedings, especially in cases involving serious offences with societal impact.

1. This petition has been filed to call for the records in C.C.No.4 of 2008, on the file of the XI Additional City Civil & Sessions Judge, CBI Cases relating to Banks and Financial Institutions, Chennai and Quash the charge sheet in C.C.No.4/2008, on the file of the XI Additional City Civil & Sessions Judge, CBI Cases relating to Banks and Financial Institutions, Chennai.

2. The case of the petitioners is that the respondent had filed their final report implicating the first petitioner/A8 as the proprietor of M/s. Ushakiran Constructions and friend of Sudha Ramani-A16. She opened a Current Account with Andhra Bank on the introduction of A16 and applied for SOD facility of Rs.15 Lakhs. She produced the collateral security believing the representations of the owner of the said property. She executed composite agreement and demand promissory Note for the SOD complying with Banking formalities. The first petitioner on understanding that there was some lacunae in the collateral security submitted by her to the Bank, had immediately approached the bank and had settled her SOD much before the defacto complainant bank could even give a complaint to the respondent police. The bank had also confirmed the settlement and closure of the SOD by the first petitioner and had acknowledged receipt of the money from the first petitioner in the case filed by the bank before the Debt Recovery Tribunal II, Chennai in O.A.No.145/2009, The specific allegation against the first petitioner is for an offence u/s.420, 468 r/w.471 IPC. Thus there is no amount due and payable by the first petitioner to Andhra Bank as confirmed by the bank. The petitioner’s SOD account with Andhra Bank is independent of the other accounts involved in this case and the petitioners have no relationship or understanding with any other accused in operating this SOD.

3. The respondent had filed their final report implicating the petitioners 2 and 3 in this case. The second petitioner on behalf of the third petitioner applied for SOD of Rs.15 lakhs and introduced A21. The collateral security believing the representations of the owner of the said property was produced by the second petitioner. The second petitioner on behalf of the third petitioner had executed composite agreement and demand promissory note for the SOD complying with banking formalities. The second petitioner on understanding that there was some lacunae in the collateral security submitted by her company to the bank, had immediately approached the bank and had settled her SOD much before the defacto complainant bank could even give a complaint to the respondent police. The bank had also confirmed the settlement and closure of the SOD by the petitioners 2 and 3 and had acknowledged receipt of the money from them, in the case filed by the bank before the Debt recovery Tribunal II, Chennai in O.A.No.145/2009. The specific allegation against the second and third petitioners is for an offence u/s.420, 468 r/w. 471 IPC. Thus there is no amount due and payable by the petitioners 2 & 3 to Andhra Bank as confirmed by the bank. The petitioners’ 2 & 3, SOD account with Andhra Bank is independent of the other accounts involved in this case and the petitioners 2 & 3 has no relationship or understanding with any other accused in operating this SOD. The SOD account of the first petitioner being the Proprietor of M/s. Ushakiran Constructions and SOD Account of the petitioners 2 and 3, represented by its Director and second petitioner had being compromised/closed. The petitioner submits that the civil liability with the defacto-complainant-Andhra Bank had being compromised/closed and the defacto complainant had in their application before the Debt Recovery Tribunal-II, Chennai in O.A.No.145/2009 in para-9 had confirmed the same. The final report of the prosecution only implicates the petitioner for an offence u/s.420, 468 r/w.471 IPC. The petitioner submits that unlike V.M. Ganesan(A1) the petitioners are not made as accused