Point of Law: Section 177 of the CrPC unambiguously states that every offence shall ordinarily be inquired into and tried by a Court within whose local jurisdiction it was committed.

ORDER :

This writ petition is filed to issue a Writ of Certiorari, order or direction, calling for the records in C.C. No. 3449 of 2018 pending on the file of Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai and to quash the charge sheet in RC No.4 of 2016 including the order dated 8-5-2018 passed by the ACMM, Egmore, Chennai in CC No. 3449 of 2018.

2. Heard Sri S. Nagamuthu, learned Senior Counsel representing Ms. Anaveni Mogili, counsel on record for the petitioner and the Sri Surya Karan Reddy, learned Additional Solicitor General of India for respondent No. 1, CBI and the learned counsel for Central Bank of India representing the respondent No.2.

3. The facts of the case leading to filing of the present case are:

In the year 2010, M/s. Best & Crompton Engineering Projects Ltd. (BCEPL) (A2) had availed credit facilities from a consortium of Banks led by the Central Bank of India. The Central Bank of India sanctioned Rs.120.00 Crores for fund based and non-fund based working capital limit to BCEPL on 21.10.2010 secured by immovable property as well as corporate guarantee. The Andhra Bank had sanctioned credit limit to a tune of Rs.60 Crores and the Corporation Bank sanctioned credit limit to a tune of Rs.120 Crores to BCEPL meeting a total requirement of Rs.300 Crores. A2 failed to make the required payments to the consortium of banks. The Asst. Manager, Central Bank of India, Corporate Finance Branch filed a complaint with the investigating agency. The Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), Bangalore office, Respondent No. 1 registered a case in RC No.04/E/2016-CBI/BS&C/BLR on 01.02.2016 against A2 company under Section 120-B read with Sections 420, 468 and 471 IPC. The petitioner, who was the Managing Director of BCEPL, was arrayed as A1. The case of the prosecution was that all the accused were a party to a criminal conspiracy hatched among themselves in Hyderabad and Chennai and other places during the years 2010-13 in defrauding and cheating the consortium of banks led by the Central Bank of India. In furtherance of the said criminal conspiracy, the accused persons induced Central Bank of India, Corporate Finance Branch, Chennai, by submitting fraudulent letter of credit documents without any physical movement of goods and unlawfully availed credit facilities for which they were not eligible and diverted the loan amount for the purposes other than which it was sanctioned. As on 19-11-2013, they had caused a wrongful loss to a tune of Rs.133.31 Crores and corresponding unlawful gain to themselves. A charge sheet was filed under Section 120-B read with 420, 465 & 471 IPC arraying the petitioner as accused No. 1.

3.1. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that at the time of sanction of loan, the petitioner was not on the rolls of A2, therefore, the question of the petitioner being a party to the conspiracy would not arise. The petitioner occupied the seat of the Managing Director of A2 company in February 2012, whereas the loan was sanctioned in 2010. Therefore, none of the charging provisions in the charge sheet or in the complaint would apply to the petitioner. The allegations in the FIR and charge sheet were civil in nature and the same would not attract the ingredients of a criminal offence. The case of the bank with respect to the FIR dated 01.02.2016 would only relate to a commercial dispute for recovery of debt and grant of credit facility. The case was civil in nature and no criminal offence was made out against the petitioner. The grant of credit facility was purely for business purposes and the recovery of the same could only be related to dispute of civil nature and not otherwise and non-payment of credit facility ipso facto was not an offence under IPC. The respondents malafidely given colour of a criminal offence to a civil dispute. The complaint given by the bank was nothing but abuse of process of law and the same was driven by ulterior motives.

3.2 It was not the case of the prosecution that