Back
2023 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 76042
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
M.NIRMAL KUMAR, J
Ramkhumar Narashihan – Appellant
Versus
The State, Represented by Inspector of Police, CBI, Anti corruption Bureau, Chennai – Respondent
CRL.O.P.Nos.18287 | CRL.O.P.Nos.18299 | CRL.O.P.Nos.18300 | CRL.O.P.Nos.18301 | Crl.M.P.Nos.12047 | Crl.M.P.Nos.12051 | Crl.M.P.Nos.12053 | Crl.M.P.Nos.12047 | Crl.M.P.Nos.12045
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr.P.V.Balasubramaniam
For the Respondents: Mr.K.Srinivasan, Ms.Rita Chandrasekar, Mr.Vignesh Imayavaramban, Mr.S.Haroon, Mr.M.Palanivel
Multiple FIRs concerning same allegations constitute an abuse of process, as only the first FIR suffices for legal actions regarding identical transactions.
Headnote:(A) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 482 - Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - Sections 120-B and 420 - FIRs challenging multiple fraud allegations against consortium banks' borrowers - Subsequent FIRs quashed as they concern same allegations which are adequately addressed in earlier registered FIR - Multiple FIRs on identical transactions constitute abuse of legal process. (Paras 27, 28)
(B) Jurisdiction of FIRs - Court found multiple FIRs as overlapping and reiterated that second FIRs are not maintainable where prior FIR exists on the same issue, countering separate reporting from consortium banks. (Paras 10, 11, 28)
Facts of the case:
The petitioners, directors of Infinitas Energy Solutions Private Limited, incurred loans from banks but faced financial difficulties, leading to allegations of fraudulent activities resulting in multiple FIR registrations.
Findings of Court:
All FIRs relate to the same transactions and complaints constitute an abuse of process; hence, no fresh investigation warranted.
Issues: Whether subsequent FIRs based on the same factual allegations against the same accused for identical offences can be accepted.
Ratio Decidendi: It was determined that the FIRs were repetitive and cumulatively covered by the first FIR, causing harassment to the accused.
Result: Criminal Original Petitions dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. overview of the case and firs. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. details about iespl and allegations. (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 3. arguments against multiple firs. (Para 7 , 8 , 9 , 10) |
| 4. legal basis for multiple firs. (Para 11 , 12 , 13) |
| 5. stand on public servant definition. (Para 14 , 15) |
| 6. prosecutor's defense of multiple firs. (Para 16 , 17) |
| 7. detailing differences in firs. (Para 18 , 19) |
| 8. nature of fraud allegations. (Para 20 , 21 , 22 , 23) |
| 9. court's analysis and judgments. (Para 24 , 25 , 26) |
| 10. conclusion of legal proceedings. (Para 27 , 28) |
| 11. final judgment dismissal. (Para 29) |
COMMON ORDER
The Criminal Original Petitions have been filed to call for the records in FIR No.RC0322021A0015, FIR No.RC0322021A0016, FIR No.RC0322021A0017, FIR No.RC0322021A0018, respectively dated 21.10.2021, on the file of the 1st Respondent, registered based on the complaint lodged by the respective 2nd respondents, who are members of the consortium-banks on the allegations of fraud, which is the subject matter of previous FIR being FIR No.RC0322020A0013 lodged by the Lead Banker of the Consortium – Punjab National Bank and quash the same with further and consequential proceedings as against the petitioners herein.
2. The brief facts of the case reads as follows:-
The petitioners along with few other persons incorporated a Private Company in the name and style of “Infinitas Energy Solutions Private Limited” on 12.11.2010 (hereinafter referred to as IESPL), under the Companies Act, 1956 . The IESPL is engaged in the business of Renewable Energy. Thereafter, to size up the business, to increase the inventory, to maintain healthy cash flow so as to make payments to the suppliers on time, and for long- term working capital, IESPL wished to avail Fund Based and Non-Fund Based credit facilities from various Banks. The IESPL initially approached Punjab National Bank (hereinafter referred to as PNB) to avail credit facilities. After necessary due diligence, PNB sanctioned Fund Based (FB) facility of Rs.1 Crore and Non-Fund Based Facility of Rs.30 Crores, totalling Rs.31 Crores, on 20.12.2011. Thereafter, the IESPL approached the Bank of Baroda, which sanctioned Fund Based (FB) facility of Rs.15 Crores and Non-Fund Based Facility of Rs.20 Crores, totalling Rs.35 Crores, on 04.12.2012; the Canara Bank sanctioned Fund Based (FB) facility of Rs.20 Crores, on 13.03.2013; the Indian Bank, sanctioned Credit Limit of Rs. 40 crores (Open Cash Credit of Rs. 15 Crores and Inland Letter of Credit of Rs.25 Crores with sub-limit of Rs. 5 Crore for Bank Guarantee) on 01.06.2013 and the Bank of India, sanctioned Fund Based (FB) facility of Rs.10 Crores and Non- Fund Based Facility of Rs.15 Crores, totalling Rs.25 Crores. Since the IESPL could not meet the repayment obligation on time, as agreed and thereby the accused cheated the Banks, thereby causing a wrongful loss to the Banks by misappropriating the loan amount and the accused gained wrongfully. Based on the complaint of the defacto complainants, the above cases have been registered against the petitioners.
-
3. Mr.P.V.Balasubramaniam, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners along with few other persons incorporated a Private Company in the name and style of “Infinitas Energy Solutions Private Limited” on 12.11.2010. The IESPL is engaged in the business of Renewable Energy. To size up the business, inventory, maintain healthy cash flow so as to make payments to the suppliers on time, and for long- term working capital, the Company had several borrowing from various Banks. Using the said loans, the IESPL expanded its business. However, owing to circumstances beyond its control, it experienced sluggish growth. Despite the same, IESPL continued using the LC limits by issuing letter of credit to suppliers. In the due course of business, IESPL experienced a heavy stress on profitability owing to severe market conditions. Due to the above said reasons, IESPL incurred heavy losses
