THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA

ORDER:

This criminal petition is filed seeking to quash the proceedings in CC No.12 of 2021 against the petitioners- accused Nos.2 & 3 on the file of I-Additional Special Judge for CBI Cases, Hyderabad at Nampally, for the offences under Sections 120B read with 420, 409, 468 and 471 IPC and Section 13(2) read with 13 (1) (c) and (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

2. Heard Mr.T. Raghava Charyulu, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. T. Srujan Kumar Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for CBI for respondent No.1.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the Bank has come forward for One Time Settlement (OTS) and once OTS is accepted, the criminal proceedings cannot be initiated in view of the judgment of the Hon’be Apex Court in Tarina Sen v. Union of India, (2024) 10 SCR 417

4. Learned Standing Counsel for CBI has submitted that accused Nos.2 and 3 in the Tarina Sen’s case, who were conspirators, passed away, then the Hon’ble Supreme Court has considered the case of the wives of the conspirators, accused therein. That the facts of the present case differ from the above mentioned case and hence, the submission of the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners does not fall for consideration. He further submitted that the petitioners herein are alleged to have misappropriated an amount of Rs.192.98 Crores and the allegations do disclose that they entertain malafide intention from the inception of the crime and they have deposited false valuation reports and obtained loans and subsequently, the said properties under the loan accounts were declared to be NPA. Thus, the accused herein have resorted to swiping of the public money by creating factious documents and obtaining loans and diverting to their own accounts.

5. The learned Standing Counsel further submitted that in Central Bureau of Investigation v. Maninder Singh, (2016) 1 SCC 389, the High Court had quashed the proceedings against the accused therein but, the said orders were set aside by the Hon’ble Apex

Court. Learned Standing Counsel further relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Parbatbhai Aahir @ Parbatbhai Bhimsnhbhai Karmur and others v. State of Gujarat and another, (2017) 9 SCC 641. He further submitted that entering into OTS absolves the civil liability, but not the criminal liability and he therefore, prayed to dismiss the petition.

6. Perused the record.

7. The petitioners herein are alleged to have forged the documents by showing false existence of fish tanks (Pisciculture) and obtained loans, and after obtaining loans, they diverted the amounts to their own accounts. The allegations do point out a serious economic offence. The Investigating Agency has collected necessary material during the course of investigation, which needs to be tested during the course of trial.

8. In Tanira Sen’s case (1 supra), the matter was compromised between the borrowers and the bank upon payment under the OTS. The loan of the borrower has been closed. Therefore, the only question was whether to continue the criminal proceeding or not. When the matter has reached the

Apex Court, the actual accused i.e. conspirators were expired. The case was only against two women i.e. accused Nos.4 and 5, accused No.4 was the wife of accused No.2 and accused No.5 was the wife of the brother of accused No.2. Therefore, continuation of the proceedings against the appellants therein i.e. accused Nos.4 and 5 was held to be abuse of process of law and hence, the same was quashed.

9. In Parbatbhai Aahir’s case (3 supra), a Three Judge Bench of the Hon’ble Apex Curt has held that:

“Economic offences involving the financial and economic well-being of the state have implications which lie beyond the domain of a mere dispute between private disputants. The High Court would be justified in declining to quash where the offender is involved in an activity akin to a financial or economic fraud or misdemeanour. The consequences of the act