Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

Mr. Ajit Kumar, the learned Senior Advocate appears on behalf of the petitioner in Cr.M.P.No.3140 of 2022. He has also relied on the two judgments Madras High Court which is annexed with the petition of this petitioner and he has taken the Court to the Circular of 2014 of the R.B.I. referring counter affidavit of the C.B.I. which is the circular of R.B.I. dated 01.7.2014. By way of referring several clauses of the said circular, particularly, clause 2.3 which speaks to ensure uniformity and to avoid duplication, frauds involving forged instruments may be reported only by the paying banker and not by the collecting banker. He also refers to clause 2.3.1 and submits that it speaks of reporting of fraud to be done to Central Fraud Monitoring Cell of the Department of Banking Supervision. He refers to clause-4, reporting of frauds to Reserve Bank of India. He also refers to clause-3.1, fraud involving Rs.One lakh and above and took the Court to the different paragraphs of the said clauses. He also placed reliance on the fraud cases involving amount more than One lakh upto 50 lakhs. He draws the attention of the Court to clause-3.3, which speaks of frauds involving Rs.100 lakhs and above. By way of referring clause-6, he submits that the guidelines for reporting frauds to police/C.B.I is there, however, in the case in hand, without following the guideline the case has been registered by the C.B.I. By way of placing this document, he further submits that this guideline is followed in the Policy of 2015 and 2016 which has not been overruled and identical guidelines are there and in that view of the matter, in the light of the judgment of the Madras High Court, the entire criminal proceeding is fit to be quashed. He further submits that the entire business of the petitioner has been interrupted only due to suo-motu interference of the C.B.I. Mr. Sumeet Gadodia, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner in Cr.M.P.No.2681 of 2022 has also adopted the argument of Mr. Ajit Kumar, the learned Senior counsel and Mr. Sanjay Samdarshi, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners in respective above cases, and submits that two of the judgments relied by the learned counsels are on the identical issue and he has also placed reliance on those two judgments. He draws the attention of the Court to the F.I.R. which is at page-21 and by way of referring to the contents of the F.I.R he submits that in F.I.R it has been disclosed that information has been received from the reliable source to the effect that the petitioner was the Director and without disclosing the source of information the F.I.R has been registered. He further elaborated his argument by way of submitting that in a fraud case if on the strength of defalcation of money of bank the F.I.R is registered, the Bank officials are required to lodge the FIR or the complaint, however, the Bank has not lodged the F.I.R and there is no Prevention of Corruption Act is involved and in that view of the matter in light of the provisions made in Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946, the C.B.I is not competent to register the F.I.R suo-motu. He further refers to the Section-3 of the said Act and submits that if the Central Government may, by Notification in the Official Gazette, specifies the offences or classes of offences, which are to be investigated by the Delhi Special Police Establishment then only the C.B.I. is required to interfere, however, in absence of any complaint on behalf of the Bank or any official, the C.B.I has suo-motu registered the F.I.R. which is against the mandate of law. He further submits that the C.B.I is having its own Crime Manual and submits that as per the clauses-8.2, 8.3 and 8.5 of the said Manual, the C.B.I. has registered the case and to buttress his argument, he took the Court to the judgment in the case of "Green Signal Bio-Pharma Pvt. Ltd. v. Union Government of India" of the Madras High Court on which all the counsels have heavily placed reliance, particularly, paragraph nos.7, 8 and 9 of the said judgment, which are quoted herein below: