Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

9. The trial court, vide order dated 23rd November, 2006 refused to quash the present proceedings against the petitioners on the ground that the power to quash the proceedings on the ground of compromise between the parties are only with the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and ordered framing of charges against the petitioners.

10. After completion of investigation, the charge sheet was filed on 19th December, 1996 in the court of Special Judge, Delhi against the accused Shri N. Bhojraja Shetty (A-1), Shri Sanjay Bhandari (A-2), Shri Rajinder Kumar Bhandari (A-3), Smt. Sonia Bhandari (A-4) and M/s RKB Herbals Pvt. Ltd. (A-5) for offence punishable under Section 120-B IPC read with 420 IPC and 5(2) read with 5(l)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1957 ('PC Act') and corresponding Section of 13(2) read with 13(l)(d) of PC Act 1988.

17. Mr.Tulsi submits that in the case of N.L. Jain (supra), offences under Sections 120-B/420 IPC and Sections 5(2) read with Section 5(l)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 corresponding to Sections 13(2) read with Section 13(l)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 were alleged against the accused persons. Despite of the same, Supreme Court quashed the proceedings.

18. Mr.Tulsi further submits in the case of Nikhil Merchant (supra), accused persons were charged under Section 120-B IPC read with Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC read with Sections 5(2), 5(1)(d) of PC Act, 1947 and Sections 13 (2) read with 13 (1) (d) of the PC Act, 1988. Charges are similar to the present case as the substratum of charges against the private individuals in all the three aforementioned Apex Court judgments appear to be of criminal conspiracy to cheat the complainant bank. Charges of forgery are also made out to achieve the said purpose. Substantive offences under PC Act are principally made out against the public servants, who were necessarily bank employees of public sector banks in all the three said cases.

41. In his individual capacity, petitioner No.1 herein, namely Shri Sanjay Bhandari has been charged under Sections 420 and 471 IPC. In her individual capacity, petitioner No.2, namely Smt. Sonia Bhandari has been charged under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 IPC. The accused bank employee (public servant) being accused No.1 in the trial, together with the petitioners who are accused No. 2 and 4, have been together charged under Sections 120-B IPC, read with Section 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC read with Section 5 (1) (d) punishable under Section 5 (2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 and Section 13 (1) (d) (ii) punishable under Section 13 (2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

68. The Supreme Court, answering the reference of Nikhil Merchant, in Gian Singh was mindful of the factum of offences that were alleged in the case of Nikhil Merchant. Substantive offences were alleged under Section 420, 467, 468 and 471 of IPC, and offences were alleged under 120-B IPC read with PC Act, 1988. In this respect, Para 1of the Nikhil Merchant judgment is relevant to be reproduced below:

"The Central Bureau of Investigation (hereinafter referred to as "CBI") filed a charge sheet against five accused persons under Section 120-B read with Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 of the Penal Code, 1860 read with Sections 5(2) read with Section 13(l)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. In the said charge sheet, the appellant herein was made Accused 3 and the company, in respect of which he was the former Managing Director, M/s Neemuch Emballage Ltd., Mumbai, was made Accused 4. The other three accused are official of Andhra Bank."