IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Sheel Nagu and Arun Kumar Sharma, JJ.
Vivek Sharma v. Central Bureau of Investigation and another
Writ Petition No. 6343 of 2022 (J); Decided on 24.8.2022
Constitution of India -- Art. 226 -- Criminal P.C. 1973 -- S. 482 -- scope -- quashing of FIR -- serious allegation of criminal conspiracy with dishonest intention to cheat bank -- FIR not encyclopedia disclosing all facts and details relating to offence -- Court should not examine merits of allegations during investigation by police -- power of quashing FIR should be exercised in rare cases -- facts prima facie reveal cognizable offences -- defence raised by petitioner requires evidence -- evidence cannot be appreciated, evaluated or adjudged in writ proceedings -- no material on record warranting interference of High Court -- FIR cannot be quashed at this stage -- writ petition dismissed. (2018) 5 SCC 718 followed. 1992 Supp. (1) SCC 335, (2003) 3 SCC 641, (2007) 12 SCC 1, (2011) 7 SCC 59, (2015) 8 SCC 293, (2018) 14 SCC 233, (2018) 15 SCC 273, (2019) 9 SCC 148 and (2019) 2 SCC 401 distinguished. [Paras 8 & 10]
Hkkjr dk lafo/kku & vuqPNsn 226 & naM çfØ;k lafgrk] 1973 & èkkjk 482 & O;kfIr & çFke bfRryk fji¨VZ dk vfÒ[kaMu & cSad ls Ny djus d¢ csÃekuhiw.kZ vk'k; ls vkijkfèkd "kM~;a= dk xaÒhj vfÒdFku & çFke bfRryk fji¨VZ] vijkèk ls lacafèkr lÒh rF; rFkk fooj.k çdV djus okyk fo'od¨"k ugha & iqfyl }kjk vUos"k.k d¢ n©jku U;k;ky; d¨ vfÒdFku¨a d¢ xq.kkxq.k dh tkap ugha djuk pkfg, & çFke bfRryk fji¨VZ vfÒ[kafMr djus dh 'kfDr fojys ekey¨a esa ç;qDr dh tkuk pkfg, & rF;ksa ls çFke n`"V;k laKs; vijkèk çdV & ;kph }kjk yh xà çfrj{kk esa lk{; visf{kr & fjV dk;Zokgh esa lk{; dk foospu] ewY;kadu ;k U;k;fu.kZ;u ugha fd;k tk ldrk & mPp U;k;ky; dk gLr{ksi vko';d cukus okyh d¨Ã lkexzh vfÒys[k ij ugha & bl çØe ij çFke bfRryk fji¨VZ dk vfÒ[kaMu ugha fd;k tk ldrk & fjV ;kfpdk [kkfjtA ¼2018½ 5 ,l lh lh 718 vuqlfjrA 1992 lIyhŒ ¼1½ ,l lh lh 335] ¼2003½ 3 ,l lh lh 641] ¼2007½ 12 ,l lh lh 1] ¼2011½ 7 ,l lh lh 59] ¼2015½ 8 ,l lh lh 293] ¼2018½ 14 ,l lh lh 233] ¼2018½ 15 ,l lh lh 273] ¼2019½ 9 ,l lh lh 148 rFkk ¼2019½ 2 ,l lh lh 401 çÒsfnrA ¼iSjk 8 ,oa 10½
ORDER
Sharma, J:- 1. Animadverting upon the method and manner in which the FIR dated 24.2.2022 vide No. RC0082022A0004 has been registered by the Central Bureau of Investigation (in short “CBI”) under sections 120-B r/w. Section 420 of IPC and section 13(2) r/w. Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, against the petitioner , this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is focused to get it quashed.
2. Compendiously and concisely, the relevant facts absolutely necessary and germane for the disposal of this petition would run hereinafter. A written complaint dated 18.2.2022, addressed to the Superintendent of Police, Central Bureau of Investigation, Bhopal, has been lodged by Shri K. J. Srikanth, General Manager, Canara Bank, Circle Office, Bhopal, against M/s. Brownie & sons ( represented by its partners / guarantors namely Shri Sunil Tiberwal, Shri Vivek Sharma / present petitioner and unknown public servants / unknown others, alleging therein that the aforesaid accused including the present petitioner entered into a criminal conspiracy among themselves with dishonest intention to cheat Canara Bank (erstwhile Syndicate Bank) in a matter of CC facilities / term loan and they cheated the bank to the tune of Rs.3.44 crore, by way of siphoning / diversion of the bank funds for their personal use, during the period from 2014 to 2015.
3. Original complaint dated 18.2.2022 is enclosed with the petition as Annexure-P/2, in which it has been alleged that M/s Brownie and Sons, Bhopal is a partnership firm established on 2.5.2014, having its registered office at G-02, Sagar Homes, Phase-1, 273 Sector-A, Kolar Road, Sarvadharam Colony, Bhopal. The firm M/s Brownie and Sons was engaged in hospitality sector and intended to start a business of running bar, restaurant and discotheque. The firm was promoted by two partners Shri Sunil Tiberwal and Vivek Sharma (present petitioner) on equal sharing basis. M/s Brownie and Sons was financed with credit facilities to the extent of Rs.350 Lacs by Arera Colony Branch, e-Syndicate Bank (Now Canara Bank), Bhopal on 17.10.2014 and the account slipped to NPA w.e.f. 30.11.2015 in the books of the Bank. The present liability of the partnership firm with bank is Rs.3.44 crore as on date plus interest. M/s. Brownie and sons approached Arera Colony Branch, e-Syndicate Bank for financial assistance of Rs.350.00 lacs comprising of term loan of Rs.325.00 lacs towards purchase of commercial property situated at Aura Mall (II Floor, Unit No.5-02, commercial space of built up area of 2921 sq. ft. at Aura Mall, Arera Colony,, Bhopal) and for purchase of furniture and fixtures, discotheque stage, interior decoration etc. for setting up a new pub cum restaurant in the said property and OD limit of Rs.25.00 lacs towards working capital expenditure. The RO, Bhopal, vide orders dated 17.10.2014 sanctioned a composite loan of Rs.350 lacs to M/s. Brownie and sons. Out of the sanctioned term loan amount of Rs.325 lacs, Bank had disbursed Rs.317 lacs towards purchase of the Commercial property at Aura mall and remitted to M/s Sandhyaprakash Ltd. (seller). The said property was registered vide sale deed No. 1894(2) dated 21.10.2014 in favour of the borrower M/s Brownie & Sons in Sub-Registrar Office, Bhopal The branch has created UREM on 21.10.2014 by deposit of original title deed no. 1894(2). However, on visit to the property site, it was found that the shop has no furniture and fixtures and the money has not been utilized for the purpose for which it was given. The unit has never commenced its commercial business and the materials and equipments were neither delivered nor installed by the suppliers/contractors, which clearly indicates that the borrowers have colluded with the suppliers and misappropriated & siphoned off the bank fund for personal use. The facts mentioned in the aforesaid complaint vide Annexure-P/2, prima facie, reveal commission of cognizable offences and thus, the FIR
The court emphasized that quashing of criminal proceedings should be an exception rather than a rule, and should only be done in exceptional cases where non-interference would result in a miscarriage....
Quashing of criminal proceedings is not permissible where serious fraud allegations threaten public interest; individual settlements cannot outweigh collective societal harm.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that for quashing an FIR under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., the allegations in the FIR must be tested at their face value and accepted in their enti....
Judicial review under Art.226 to quash an FIR requires clear absence of any disclosed offence; circumstances must be extraordinary.
The power of quashing should be exercised sparingly with circumspection, and the court should be extremely cautious and slow to interfere with the investigation and/or trial of criminal cases.
The court upheld that serious allegations of fraud warranted ongoing investigation, as the petitioners were not subject to prosecution nor double jeopardy.
Second FIR is permissible when second FIR is counter-complaint or presents a rival version of a set of facts, in reference to which earlier FIR already stands registered.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.