Criminal proceedings under the Prevention of Corruption Act cannot be quashed based on civil settlements, emphasizing the need for trial completion.

ORDER :

1. The petitioner/A2, who is facing trial in C.C. No. 11 of 2008 for offence under Section 120-B r/w 420 IPC and Section 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Correction Act, 1988 before the learned XI Additional Special Court for CBI Cases at Chennai, has filed this Quash Petition primarily on the ground of due amount settled to the 2^nd respondent Bank.

2. The submissions of the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner are as follows:

(i) The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the case projected against the petitioner is that the petitioner along with other accused entered into a criminal conspiracy in the year 2002 to cheat the 2^nd respondent Bank, opened current account, got discounted 59 bills enclosing false invoices and receipts for various amounts under Secured Demand Bills (SDB) during the period from 18.12.2002 to 14.12.2003, out of which, 44 bills became outstanding to the tune of Rs.28.58 lakhs as on 28.02.2005. The petitioner, Proprietor of M/s.Sriram Trading Company discounted the bills presented and caused loss to the 2^nd respondent Bank. A1, the then Chief Manager of the 2^nd respondent Bank purchased the Secured Demand Bills by reducing initial margin of 25% on 18.12.2002 and 19.12.2002 and later further reduced it to 10% by exceeding his limit of purchase. In this case, the approver Mr. S. Narasimha Ragavan prepared antedated note on the basis of the papers submitted by M/s. Sriram Trading Company requesting for Secured Demand Bills (SDB) limit for Rs.30 lakhs. A1 approved the same on the same day knowing fully well that there is no collateral securities for the bills already purchased. The petitioner's brother Mr. Gnaneswaran/A3 arranged for guarantor Mr. T.R. Krishnamoorthy (Since deceased) with a property worth of Rs.1 lakh as collateral security. Mr. Balasubramanian/A6, a private valuer inflated the value of the property to Rs.13.50 lakhs. The petitioner along with A3 arranged to fill up the cheques through Mr. A.R. Madan Rao/A5 and Ms. Kasthuri Rao and obtained signatures from Mr. Mathan Rao/A5, Mr. B.K. Senthil, Mr. H.S. Kanna and Mr.V.S.Kannan on the reverse side of the cheque and encashed the same. Further, in the name of Mr. B.V.K. Kumar, some cheques signed by A3 and withdrew the proceeds of the discounted amounts.

(ii) The further case is that the petitioner knowing fully well that the addressee mentioned in the invoices not ordered the goods and furnished the names and addresses of Mr. Jayaraman, Proprietor of M/s. Alankar Jawli Stores, Sholinghur, Mr. Syed Hassan, Proprietor of M/s. Jailani Jawli Stores, Sholinghur to Ms. S.S. Kasthuri Rao and used their addresses in the invoices for discounting the secured demand bills and thereby caused wrongful loss. In this case, the property which was given as security sold as early as on 18.07.2011 for a sum of Rs.15,60,000/- and the same was given to the petitioner's account would clearly prove that the property was not undervalued. The 2^nd respondent Bank filed full satisfaction memo before the Debt Recovery Tribunal on 03.09.2020 and also issued a letter dated 13.12.2020 informing that under One Time Settlement scheme, the entire amount was settled to the 2^nd respondent Bank.

(iii) The learned Senior Counsel further submitted that the Hon'ble Apex Court held that in criminal cases having predominantly civil character, especially where a settlement is arrived at after the alleged commission of offence, the Courts may be liberal in accepting the settlement and quashing the criminal proceedings. To substantiate the same, the learned Senior Counsel relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the cases of CBI v. Narendra Lal, (2014) 5 SCC 364 and Kothari Polymers Ltd. and others v. SIU (X)/SPE/CBI, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 2078 which is followed in K. Barathi Devi and another v. State of Telungana and another, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 2695 and Tarina Sen v. Union of India and another, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 2696. Thus, the dispute betw