Serious offenses under the Prevention of Corruption Act cannot be quashed based on a private settlement as they harm public interest and have societal implications.

ORDER

The petitioners are accused Nos.2 to 5 in C.C.No.30/

2011 on the files of the Special Court (SPE/CBI), Thiruvananthapuram. The offences alleged are punishable under Sections 420 , 468 and 471 read with Section 120B IPC and Sections 13 (1)(d) read with Section 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act .

2. The prosecution allegation can be briefly stated as follows:-

During April, 2003, the 1st accused, while working as the Chief Manager of State Bank of Travancore, Beach Road Branch, Kollam, entered into a conspiracy with accused Nos.2 to 4 and 6 to cheat the State Bank of Travancore and to obtain undue pecuniary advantage to themselves by availing loan in the name of the 2nd, the 4th and the 6th accused. Accused No.5 also joined in the conspiracy and fabricated false documents and handed over the said documents to the 1st accused. In pursuance of the conspiracy, accused No.2 fabricated two certificates dated 30.11.2003 showing the debt balance in the account of accused Nos.2 and 4 in the Federal Bank, Kilimanoor Branch as Rs.11,80,000/- and Rs.10,80,000/- respectively. In the said ceritificates, the signature in the place of Manager, Federal Bank, Kilimanoor was forged by the 2nd accused. In pursuance of the conspiracy, the 5th accused forged income tax returns in the name of the 2nd accused for the assessment year 2001-2002 and in the name of the 4th accused for the assessment year 2001- 2002. The said forged income tax returns were submitted by the 2nd and the 4th accused through the 3rd accused and the said income tax returns were accepted by the 1st accused knowing fully well that the said documents were forged documents. The 1st accused, who was the Chief Manager of the SBT, knowing fully well that accused Nos.2 to 5 availed overdraft cash credit facility of Rs.9,00,000/-

from the Federal Bank, Kilimanoor Branch vide account Nos.124 and 125, conducted pre-sanction inspection and advised the 4th accused to get forged letters purported to have been signed by the Federal Bank. Accordingly, accused Nos.2 and 3 prepared forged debt balance letter and two letters showing that account Nos.124 and 125 were regular and satisfactory, despite the fact that account No-124 was declared as NPA from 30 9.2000 and account No-125 was declared as NPA from 31.3.2001. Accused No.2 filled up passbook of Federal Bank. Accused No.3 arranged a forged seal of the Federal Bank and handed over the same to the 1st accused. On the basis of the above said forged and false documents, the 1st accused recommended for sanction of loan and the competent authority sanctioned an amount of Rs.30,00,000/- to accused No.2. The 1st accused sanctioned a loan of Rs.15,00,000/- to accused No.4. The property mortgaged as collateral security was acquired by KSTP and accused No.4 received compensation for the same. A housing loan was also sanctioned to the 6th accused on the strength of forged documents. Accused No.1 accepted pecuniary advantage to the tune of Rs.2.5 lakhs from the loan amount as bribe. Accused Nos.2 to 6 got pecuniary advantage to the tune of Rs.62.75 lakhs. The 2nd and the 4th accused submitted different loan applications on 27.7.2004, by suppressing the true facts and on the strength of false and forged documents, induced the Bank to sanction cash credit facility of Rs.37,00,000/- and Rs.15,00,000/- respectively. In pursuance of the conspiracy, accused No.2 and accused No.4 during the period 2003-2004 fraudulently and dishonestly used as genuine certain documents such as forged income tax returns in their names for the assessment year 2001-2002 and forged certificates and letters in the name of Federal Bank, Kilimanoor Branch showing that the debt balance in their account was regular and satisfactory.

3. The petitioners have filed this Crl.M.C. praying for quashing the final report and further proceedings against the petitioners in the above said case on the reason that the petitioners had repaid the entire amount to the Bank in view of the s