Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

3. The accused No.4-Company was granted financial assistance by the Andhra Bank, Opera House Branch under various facilities. On account of default in repayment of the loans, the Bank filed a suit for recovery of the amount payable and in addition, on 19th December, 1995, a complaint was made by the General Manager and the Chief Vigilance Officer of the Bank on the basis whereof investigations were undertaken by the CBI, which filed the above-mentioned charge sheet in the Court of the Special Judge on 30th December, 1998. The allegations under the charge sheet indicate that the accused persons conspired with each other in fraudulently diverting the funds of the Andhra Bank. Offences alleging forgery were also included in the charge sheet. The above-mentioned suit between the Company and the Bank, to which the appellant herein was also a party, was disposed of on a compromise arrived at between the parties which was reduced into writing, and was filed in the suit. On the basis of the consent terms, the suit was compromised upon the defendants agreeing to pay the amounts due as per the schedule mentioned in the consent terms. What is of importance in this case is clause 11 of the consent terms, which reads as follows:-

5. Before the High Court, it was urged that since the subject matter of the dispute had been settled between the appellant and the Bank, it would be unreasonable to continue with the criminal proceedings which had been commenced on a complaint filed on behalf of the Bank having particular regard to clause 11 of the consent terms by which the parties had withdrawn all claims against each other. It was submitted that the learned Special Judge had erred in rejecting the appellant's prayer for discharge from the criminal case. In support of the aforesaid contentions made on behalf of the appellant before the High Court, reference was made to the decision of this Court in the case of Central Bureau of Investigation vs. Duncans Agro Industries Ltd., [1996 (5) SCC 591] wherein on the basis of facts similar to the facts of this case, this Court had held that even if an offence of cheating is prima facie made out, such offence is a compoundable offence and compromise decrees passed in the suits instituted by the Bank, for all intents and purposes, amount to compounding of the offence of cheating. This Court accordingly, upheld the order of the High Court quashing the criminal complaint after the civil action had been compromised between the parties.

8. This appeal has been filed against the said order of the High Court rejecting the appellant's prayer for discharge from the criminal complaint.

9. Appearing for the appellant, Mr. R. Nariman, learned senior advocate, submitted that the appellant was not the direct beneficiary of the loans which had been granted by the complainant Bank, but had stood guarantee for the same in his capacity as the Managing Director of the Company to whom such loans had been advanced. Mr. Nariman submitted that while the loans were said to have been advanced to the Company- Accused No.4 between 1986 and 1989, the suit for recovery of the unpaid dues was filed by the Andhra Bank in 1992 and two years thereafter the complaint was lodged by the Bank on 19th September, 1994 and the charge sheet was filed by the CBI four years later on 30th December, 1998. Thereafter, the suit filed by the Bank for the recovery of its dues was compromised by a consent decree on 12th October, 2000, and in view of clause 11 of the consent terms, apart from the said suit, all other actions, including the criminal proceedings, also stood compounded. In support of his aforesaid submissions, Mr. Nariman also relied on the decision rendered by this Court in the Duncans Agro case (supra) and B.S. Joshi's case (supra) and submitted that the High Court had erred in coming to a finding that the said two decisions had no application to the case in hand.

11. Mr. Nariman submitted that since the disputes out of which the criminal proceeding has arisen have been compromised between the appellant and the Bank, continuing with the compliant would only amount to misuse of the process of Court.

12. In addition to his above submissions Mr. Nariman submitted that after the chargesheet was filed by the CBI on 30.12.1998, no further steps have been taken in the matter and that even charges have not been framed. He submitted that the proceedings were stayed by this Court on the SLP filed by the appellant only on 3.1.2006. He also submitted that even the Bank had not taken any action against its employees against whom chargesheet had been filed. He urged that from the manner in which the entire matter has been pursued no other object has been sought to be achieved except to harass the appellant for the last 14 years when the initial complaint was lodged by the Bank.