Punjab-Haryana High Court
` vs Cbi And Others on 15 December, 2010
Author: Jaswant Singh
Bench: Jaswant Singh
Crl.M.No.M-36780 of 2010 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
Crl.M.No.M-36780 of 2010
Date of decision:15.12.2010
Devender Singh
` ..............................Petitioner
v
CBI and others
................................Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH
Present:- Mr.JS Virk,Advocate for the petitioner.
JASWANT SINGH,J.
This order will dispose of four Crl.M.Nos.M-36780, 36781, 36782 and 36783 of 2010 as common questions of facts and law are involved. Furthermore, the relief sought for in these petitions is also common i.e. to quash FIR No. RC No.3(E) 2002-EOW-I/DLI dated 29.4.2002 under Sections 120-B read with Sections 409,420,467,468,471 IPC and Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act,1988.. For the sake of convenience, facts are being taken from Crl.M.No.M-36780 of 2010.
As per allegations in the aforesaid FIR lodged on the basis of a written complaint made by Mr.N.N.Chauhan, Assistant General Manager of respondent no.2 bank-Union Bank of India, petitioner- Crl.M.No.M-36780 of 2010 2 Devender Singh is the proprietor of M/s Vikrant Overseas which is engaged in import and export of karyana goods, poppy seeds, spices and dry fruits etc. The said firm in the course of its business was availing credit facilites of the respondent no.2-Bank. It was alleged that during the period from 8.9.2009 to 16.12.1999, Majith Mandi branch of the respondent bank received 14 import bills aggregating US $ 6.01.577 in respect of 6,57,225 kilograms of poppy seeds. It is further alleged that payment to the tune of Rs.2.57 crores was made on 29.12.1999 and 4.2.2000 without debiting the account of the petitioner's company and even without making necessary entires in the TT code book. It was alleged that in this manner undue pecuniary gains were caused to the petitioner's firm while undue pecuniary loss was caused to the respondent bank. It was further alleged that all this was done with the connivance of co-accused bank officials (1)Om Parkash Mahana (petitioner in Crl.M.No.M-36781/2010), (2) Satish Chander Sekhar Kalra (petitioner in Crl.M.No.M-36782/2010) and (3) Ashok Mahajan (petitioner in Crl.M.No.M-36783/2010).
It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that subsequently settlement proceedings were initiated between M/s Vikrant Overseas and respondent bank which has ultimately issued No Due Certificate on 28.9.2010 to the effect that the bank has received the entire amount and nothing is due. It is thus, contended that in view of the matter having been resolved between the parties, the impugned FIR and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom be quashed. Crl.M.No.M-36780 of 2010 3
After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioners I find no force in the submission of the learned counsel. The dispute herein is not of personal in nature. Prima facie, it is not a case of non- repayment of loan but an attempt was made to defraud the respondent bank and it is only after the registration of the FIR and subsequent proceedings that the dispute was settled and dues were cleared. The most disturbing fact is that in this fraud co-accused bank officials, who are custodian of the public money, were also hand in glove with petitioner-Devender Singh. Without their active involvement the fraud could not have been committed. Letting go such conspirators scot free on the basis of settlement/compromise, would tantamount to setting a bad example and this Court is not inclined to do so.
For the reasons stated above, all the aforesaid four petitions stand dismissed.
However, nothing stated above shall be taken as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case.
15.12.2010. (JASWANT SINGH) joshi JUDGE