[ad_1]
Patna High Court
Vineet Kumar Verma vs The State Of Bihar Through C.B.I. … on 16 May, 2025
Author: Sandeep Kumar
Bench: Sandeep Kumar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.51238 of 2015
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-7 Year-2001 Thana- C.B.I CASE District- Patna
======================================================
Sindhu Ratna Kul Bhaskar, son of late Sindhu Kumar Sinha, resident of Indira
Nilaya, Behind Vindyachal Apartment, Bording Road, Patna 1
... ... Petitioner
Versus
The State Of Bihar Through C.B.I.
... ... Opposite Party
======================================================
with
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 51868 of 2015
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-7 Year-2001 Thana- C.B.I CASE District- Patna
======================================================
Vineet Kumar Verma, S/o Shri Bijay Kumar Verma, Resident of Mohalla-
Amlatoli, P.O.- Buxar, P.S.- Buxar Town, Dist- Buxar.
... ... Petitioner
Versus
The state of bihar through C.B.I. District-Patna
... ... Opposite Party
======================================================
with
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 52233 of 2015
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-7 Year-2001 Thana- C.B.I CASE District- Patna
======================================================
Vishakha Sindhu, W/o Sri Sindhu Ratan Kul Bhaskar, Resident of Indra
Nilay, Behind Vindhyachal Apartment, Boring Road, P.S. - Sri Krishnapuri,
Patna 800 001.
... ... Petitioner
Versus
The State Of Bihar Through C.B.I., District- Patna
... ... Opposite Party
======================================================
Appearance :
(In CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 51238 of 2015)
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. R.K.P. Singh, Advocate
Mr. Bal Bhushan Choudhary, Advocate
For the C.B.I. : Mr. Avanish Kumar Singh, Advocate
Mr. Ambar Narayan, Advocate
Mr. Barkha, Advocate
Mr. Mukul Kumar Singh, Advocate
(In CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 51868 of 2015)
For the Petitioner : Mr. R.K.P. Singh, Advocate
Mr. Bal Bhushan Choudhary, Advocate
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.51238 of 2015 dt.16-05-2025
2/39
For the C.B.I. : Mr. Avanish Kumar Singh, Advocate
Mr. Ambar Narayan, Advocate
Mr. Barkha, Advocate
Mr. Mukul Kumar Singh, Advocate
(In CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 52233 of 2015)
For the Petitioner : Mr. R.K.P. Singh, Advocate
Mr. Bal Bhushan Choudhary, Advocate
For the C.B.I. : Mr. Avanish Kumar Singh, Advocate
Mr. Ambar Narayan, Advocate
Mr. Barkha, Advocate
Mr. Mukul Kumar Singh, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP KUMAR
C.A.V. JUDGMENT
Date : 16-05-2025
Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned
APP for the State and learned counsel for the Central Bureau of
Investigation.
2. Since in all these cases same order has been
assailed by the respective petitioners, they have been heard
together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.
3. In all these cases, the petitioners have
challenged the order dated 28.09.2015 passed by the learned
Special Judge, C.B.I.-I, Patna, in R.C. No.7(A) of 2001 (Special
Case No.101 of 2011), whereby the discharge petitions preferred
by the petitioners have been rejected.
4. The petitioner - Sindhu Ratan Kul Bhaskar
of Criminal Miscellaneous No.51238 of 2015 is the bank
official, petitioner - Vishakha Sindhu of Criminal Miscellaneous
No.52233 of 2015 is the wife of petitioner - Sindhu Ratan Kul
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.51238 of 2015 dt.16-05-2025
3/39
Bhaskar and also one of the Directors of M/s. Sidhi Exports
Private Limited and petitioner - Vineet Kumar Verma of
Criminal Miscellaneous No.51868 of 2015 is the brother-in-law
of Sindhu Ratan Kul Bhaskar and one of the Directors of M/S.
Sidhi Overseas Private Limited.
5. The prosecution case in brief, relevant for
present purpose, is that from reliable source information was
received that petitioner - Sindhu Ratan Kul Bhaskar while
functioning as Manager in the Central Bank of India, Main
Branch, Patna, in connivance with other accused persons
including the petitioners namely, Vineet Kumar Verma and
Vishakha Sindhu has abused his official position and sanctioned
pre/post shipment advances to the firms belonging to his relative
and associate and thereby, caused wrongful loss to the tune of
Rs.368.56 lakhs to the Bank. It is further alleged that the
accused persons including the petitioners also committed
forgery by altering original dates on the aforesaid illegal
advances. It is also alleged that petitioner - Sindhu Ratan Kul
Bhaskar unauthorisedly made advances against foreign outward
bills for collection to the extent of Rs.148 lakhs to M/s. Sidhi
Exports Private Limited, a firm in which his wife was one of the
Directors and with mala fide intention made debit entries in the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.51238 of 2015 dt.16-05-2025
4/39
current deposit nominal account no.259 and correspondingly
credited the overdraft account of M/s. Sidhi Exports Private
Limited.
5.1. It is also alleged that the petitioner- Sindhu
Ratan Kul Bhaskar falsified the accounts of the Bank with mala
fide intention and thereby caused wrongful loss of interest on
the aforesaid amount to the bank. It is next alleged that
petitioner- Vishakha Sindhu one of the Directors of M/S Sidhi
Export Private Limited and wife of Sindhu Ratan Kul Bhaskar,
dishonestly submitted an export bill for collection to the Central
Bank of India, Main Branch, Patna after altering the name of
original collecting Bank on the G.R. forms. She also suppressed
the fact that the same bill had already been submitted to the
Jammu & Kashmir Bank, the original collecting bank, for
advance. It has been further alleged that petitioner - Sindhu
Ratan Kul Bhaskar knowingly accepted this forged document in
order to cover up the aforesaid illegal act and dishonestly altered
the date on the forwarding letter written by the firm to the bank
and allowed advances, thereby cheated the Bank.
5.2. The next allegation is that petitioner - Sindhu
Ratan Kul Bhaskar in connivance with the then Branch
Manager, Central Bank of India, Main Branch, Patna, acted
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.51238 of 2015 dt.16-05-2025
5/39
dishonestly and without authority sanctioned packing credit
limit to M/s. Sidhi Overseas Private Limited without
considering business antecedents of the aforesaid firm. He also
dishonestly allowed heavy overdrawings in the packing credit
account of aforesaid firm and therefore, the illegal actions of
petitioner- Sindhu Ratan Kul Bhaskar and other bank officials
resulted in wrongful gain of Rs.80.93 Lakh to the firm and a
corresponding loss of Rs.80.93 lakhs to the Bank. It has been
further alleged that in order to conceal the above-mentioned
overdrawing positions, petitioner-Sindhu Ratan Kul Bhaskar
also altered the relevant records of the Bank.
5.3. It is next alleged that petitioner - Sindhu
Ratna Kul Bhaskar in connivance with other bank officials,
dishonestly and in an unauthorised manner allowed foreign
outward bill for collection advances to M/s. Sidhi Overseas
Private Limited, thereby causing the bank to deliver money to
the said firm and these actions caused a wrongful gain of
Rs.91.50 lakhs to the firm. The next allegation is that petitioner
- Sindhu Ratan Kul Bhaskar in conspiracy with petitioner -
Vineet Kumar Verma induced the Central Bank of India to
deliver money to the said firm, as a result of which, the firm
made a wrongful gain of Rs.69.13 lakhs. Lastly, it has been
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.51238 of 2015 dt.16-05-2025
6/39
alleged that in order to cover up overdrawing position, petitioner
- Sindhu Ratan Kul Bhaskar made false credit entry dated
16.08.1999
of Rs.19 lakhs in the packing credit account of M/s.
Sidhi Overseas Private Limited by debiting a non-existent
Other Term Loan account.
6. Based on the aforesaid complaint, the F.I.R.
vide R.C. No.7(A) of 2001 dated 29.05.2001 was registered
against the accused persons including these petitioners.
7. It has been submitted by learned counsel for
the petitioners the case of the prosecution, as set out in F.I.R.
itself clearly reveals that no case is made out against any of the
petitioners. According to prosecution case, it is an admitted fact
that there was a relationship of creditor and debtor between the
Bank and the aforementioned two firms as they had entered into
loan transactions and at no point of time, the Bank had suffered
any loss whatsoever.
8. It has also been submitted that that Title Suit
No.88 of 2001 was filed in the Court of Sub Judge-1, Patna by
the representative of M/s. Siddhi Export Private Limited much
prior to lodging of the present F.I.R. In the said suit, serious
allegations were made against the biased officers of the Bank,
who put embargo on the export of materials to the foreign
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.51238 of 2015 dt.16-05-2025
7/39
country, exported by the said two firms by putting hindrance in
safe passage and delivery of the goods to the foreign buyers. It
has further been submitted that the Bank also filed a recovery
suit against M/s. Siddhi Overseas Private Limited claiming due
amount of Rs.3,56,57,117/-. Thus, it is evident that actually
there was civil dispute between the creditor-Bank and the
debtor-firm and no question of cheating and forgery or
conspiracy ever arose. So far as, M/s. Siddhi Export Private
Limited is concerned, the Bank also filed O.A. No.21 of 2004
in the D.R.T. Patna against the aforesaid firm claiming due
amount Rs.1,69,67,676/-. As a matter of fact, the Bank from
time to time received payment from the foreign buyers against
the sale of goods exported to them by both the firms but the
officers of the Bank intentionally did not credit the amount
received by the Bank against the export bill in the account of
the firm.
9. It has been emphasized that both the
recovery suits pending before Debts Recovery Tribunal, Patna
ended in compromise, in pursuance of which, the
aforementioned firm paid the entire due amount of loan after
deducting the amount received from foreign buyers. Thus, all
the three cases were disposed off and the loan of the Bank was
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.51238 of 2015 dt.16-05-2025
8/39
fully satisfied and hence no loss whatsoever was caused to the
creditor Bank. Since the entire loan amount was realized by the
Bank in the recovery suit proceeding before the Tribunal, in
pursuance of compromise, no criminal charge would be
sustainable on the same set of facts giving rise to civil litigation
as well as criminal prosecution.
10. Learned counsel for the petitioners has
detailed the procedure adopted by the bank while granting loan
to any person or firm. Thereafter, learned counsel for the
petitioners submits that the procedure adopted by the Bank in
the case of M/s. Sidhi Overseas Private Limited was in
accordance with the banking norms of the Bank. In support of
the aforesaid submission, he brings out the following points to
show that the banking norms were strictly followed while
granting loan to the firm.
(i) The firm successfully completed two years of
export business and repaid the entire amount of
loan to the bank. Thereafter overdraft limit was
granted to the firm which is the usual feature of
export advance. Thus, in total amount of loan Rs.
72 Lakh granted to the firm, however, the overdraft
amount was Rs.22 Lakhs only.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.51238 of 2015 dt.16-05-2025
9/39
(ii) Out of such advance, the firm purchased one
thousand metric tone rice for export to Durban. But
the shipment was delayed due to hindrance put by
the officers of the bank and they demanded
repayment of loan amount in complete
contravention of the norms and practice of export
advance. However in the meantime, the foreign
buyer sent an amount equivalent to Rs. 32 Lakh, as
a consequence of which, now only Rs. 40 Lakh of
loan remained unpaid which came within the
overdraft limit of Rs.72 Lakh.
(iii) The firm in order to safeguard its interest and for
restraining the bank officer from putting any
hindrance in the shipment, filed Title Suit No. 88
of 2001 on 27.02.2001 in the Court of Sub Judge,
Patna against the Bank.
(iv) On the contrary, the bank held up the export bill of
the firm, by which Rs.3,51,73,125/- was blocked
and thereafter the Bank also filed a case in D.R.T.
Patna claiming due amount Rs.3,56,57,117/- which
was registered as O.Α. No.28/2003. But neither the
bank received amount in installments which was
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.51238 of 2015 dt.16-05-2025
10/39
not credited to the loan account of the firm nor
adjusted for liquidation of the alleged amount of
loan.
11. It has been submitted by learned counsel for
the petitioners that the branch of the Bank being fully
computerized and its software is approved by the Central Office
and therefore, no tampering can be done with the software. So
far as the allegation that the G.R. form received in the Bank
with error in the name of the Bank, it is emphasized that proper
corrections were made in the aforesaid G.R. form as per the
guidelines of the Reserve Bank of India.
12. It has also been submitted that neither in the
R.B.I. audit, concurrent audit, statutory audit nor in the internal
audit, which was being conducted regularly in the bank, any
adverse remark has been made.
Submissions of petitioner-Sindhu Ratan Kul Bhaskar
of Criminal Miscellaneous No.51238 of 2015.
13. It has been submitted by learned counsel for
the petitioner – Sindhu Ratan Kul Bhashkar that he is innocent
and has not committed any such offence as alleged in the F.I.R.
The petitioner joined the services of the Central Bank of India
and was posted at Rajendra Nagar Branch, Patna, in the month
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.51238 of 2015 dt.16-05-2025
11/39
of November, 1986 as Probationary Officer and thereafter he
was deputed in Boring Road Branch in the year 1989. Again, he
was deputed in New Dak Bunglow Branch, Patna, in the year
1997 and thereafter he was promoted to Scale-II Officer and
posted at Madarna Branch, Vaishali on 25.05.1999.
14. Learned counsel for the petitioner has
submitted that as per the F.I.R. the period of alleged occurrence
is from August, 1999 to December, 2000 and the place of
occurrence is Central Bank of India, Main Branch, Patna, but at
the relevant point of time, the petitioner was not posted in the
aforesaid Branch. It has been pointed out that prior to lodging of
the instant F.I.R., a Title Suit was filed by the borrower-firm
against the creditor-Bank in the Court of Sub Judge, Patna.
15. It has been submitted that that one Qamber
Hasnain and petitioner – Vineet Kumar Verma started a
partnership firm in November, 1998 after taking loan from the
Central Bank of India, Main Branch, Patna and repaid the entire
loan amount and thereafter in May, 1999 they converted the firm
into a duly incorporated firm in the name and style of M/s.
Siddhi Overseas Private Limited Limited and continued their
export business with the financial assistance of the said Bank.
Similarly, petitioner – Vishakha Sindhu and others also started
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.51238 of 2015 dt.16-05-2025
12/39
export firm in the name and style of M/s Siddhi Export Private
Limited with the financial assistance of the same Bank. It is
submitted that there is no law, rule or regulation which prohibits
or restricts the relatives of any bank employee to carry out their
own business and further the husband and wife being separate
individuals are competent to do their own business even if either
of them is in the service of the bank.
16. It has also been submitted that the petitioner
had or has no concern whatsoever with the business of his
relatives nor he was part of any of the said business and he
never pledged his collateral nor he stood as a guarantor of any
loan amount taken by the said two companies. Moreover, the
petitioner was not the sanctioning authority of loan amount
granted to the said two companies and both the companies were
granted loan in accordance with the provisions of the export
manual. It is pointed out by learned counsel for the petitioner
that at the time of granting loan, one Pandey Arun Kumar
Shrivastav was the Branch Manager of the Bank, who
sanctioned packing credit in favour of M/s. Sidhi Overseas
Private Limited in the year 1999 and had also reported about the
said account to the Regional Office of the Bank.
17. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.51238 of 2015 dt.16-05-2025
13/39
submitted that as the petitioner was having the experience and
knowledge in export loan, he was directed to process the loan
proposal of M/s. Sidhi Overseas Private Limited and
accordingly, he did so, for which there is no bar in export
manual or in the banking norms. The aforesaid firm was allowed
overdraft by the other officers of the Bank and not by the
petitioner. Further, the said overdraft account was duly reported
to the higher officer, the auditors checked the aforesaid account
and the Regional Office also verified the same.
18. It has been submitted by learned counsel for
the petitioner that the overdraft account of M/s. Sidhi Exports
Private Limited was opened by the then Branch Manager of the
Bank and at that point of time the petitioner had not even joined
the services of Bank. It is submitted that while granting loan
facilities, the required procedures were followed and all the
required loan documents were submitted by the firms and
further collateral securities were also taken from them.
19. It has been argued by learned counsel for the
petitioner that due to dispute between the bank and the firm, the
Bank officers illegally held up the export bill of
Rs.3,51,73,125/-, due to which money was blocked and delay
was caused in realizing the amount of export bill from the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.51238 of 2015 dt.16-05-2025
14/39
foreign buyers and ultimately the amount was received in the
Bank but, the officers of the Bank in quite arbitrary manner did
not credit the said received amount in the loan account of the
firm and rather had put the aforesaid amount in a separate
account. When all these matters were brought to the notice of
the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Patna and when the loan account
and the repayment schedule was provided by the firm, the
Tribunal had examined the same and ultimately the Bank
admitted and acknowledged the repayment of entire loan
amount. Therefore, in view of the above narrated factual
background, no offence is made out against this petitioner being
an officer of the Bank and he can not be blamed for any
irregularity whatsoever committed by any officer of the bank.
20. It has been argued by learned counsel for the
petitioner that despite several requests made on behalf of the
petitioner, the Bank did not provide him Officers’ Duty Register
kept and maintained in the main Branch of the Bank nor the
Investigating Officer had seized or verified such register. Apart
from the above, the letter written by Pandey Arun Kumar
Shrivastav, the then Branch Manager, to the Zonal Manager,
Patna in respect of said two loan accounts was never provided to
the Investigating Agency to examine the same. It has also been
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.51238 of 2015 dt.16-05-2025
15/39
argued that the the Investigating Officer has not examined the
list of relevant documents which have been submitted by the
petitioner.
Submissions of petitioner – Vineet Kumar Verma of
Criminal Miscellaneous No.51868 of 2015.
21. Learned counsel for the petitioner – Vineet
Kumar Verma submits that no officer or employee of the
Central bank of India lodged the instant F.I.R. since in the place
of the name of informant/complainant “source” has been
mentioned. Further, no auditor of the Bank had detected any
fraud or forgery in the loan account and/or in loan transaction of
M/s. Sidhi Overseas Private Limited. If there was any illegality
or irregularity or fraud or forgery in the loan transaction of the
aforesaid firm, the competent officer of the bank during
periodical inspection would have reported the same but, there is
no such report by any officer regarding the same. Further, no
Vigilance Officer of the Bank during vigilance inquiry ever
detected or reported any fraud or forgery against any officer of
the Bank in relation to the loan account of the firm and
therefore, the F.I.R. ought not to have been registered.
22. It has been submitted by learned counsel for
the petitioner that there is inordinate delay in lodging the F.I.R.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.51238 of 2015 dt.16-05-2025
16/39
that too without any explanation. In the F.I.R., it has been
alleged in the loan disbursement, there were several
discrepancies but no supporting document with regard to the
aforesaid discrepancies were ever produced before the
Investigating Agency at the time of lodging of the F.I.R. or even
during investigation before submitting the charge sheet. Thus,
all the allegations are groundless and there is no sufficient
ground to proceed against the petitioner.
23. It has also been submitted by learned counsel
for the petitioner that it is admitted by the prosecution that loan
was granted to the firm on the basis of packing credit agreement
granting a limit of Rs.50 Lakh and hence in the face of such
agreement of loan, no case of cheating and/or forgery is made
out. There is no allegation whatsoever against the petitioner that
he has made any false document and by committing forgery
took loan from the Bank. It is settled law that in case of bank
loan, there is a relation of debtor and creditor which does not
come within the purview of cheating.
Submissions of petitioner – Vishakha Sindhu of
Criminal Miscellaneous No.52233 of 2015.
24. It has been submitted by learned counsel for
the petitioner – Vishakha Sindhu that she is not the Director in-
charge of the firm namely, M/s. Siddhi Export Private Limited.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.51238 of 2015 dt.16-05-2025
17/39
There are other Directors as well as Director in-charge of
management of the firm and she has falsely and maliciously
been made accused in this case. It has also been submitted that
as per the allegation made in the F.I.R. the husband of this
petitioner made debit entry in nominal account where no
interest is being charged. It is falsely alleged that the petitioner
submitted export bill for collection to Jammu & Kashmir Bank
by altering the name of original bank and the bill does not
contain her writing or signature. Moreover, without getting the
disputed writing on the bill examined by an expert, such
allegation is meaningless and highly absurd.
25. It has also been submitted that initially M/s.
Sidhi Export Private Limited had overdraft account in the said
bank which was sanctioned by the then Branch Manager on
24.10.1999 with a limit of Rs. 2.15 lakh. The husband of the
petitioner was not even posted at that time in the said bank and
therefore, he did nothing in respect of such account nor he
sanctioned the limit of the amount.
26. Lastly, it has been submitted that first export
bill was raised in July 2001 and in August of the same year
payment was received. Hence post shipment advance against
export bill was fully adjusted and no loss was caused to the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.51238 of 2015 dt.16-05-2025
18/39
Bank. The firm has given collateral security and also furnished
the loan documents to cover the advance Rs.95 Lakh. The
export bill was valued at Rs.3 crore and the collateral assets
were valued at Rs. 3.10 crore, but the bank due to ulterior and
mala fide motive recalled the export bills with a view to file a
criminal case before the Central Bureau of Investigation.
However, the firm had been negotiating with the third parties to
collect sale proceed amount of exported goods which was not
possible without co-operation of the Bank.
27. It has been submitted by learned counsel for
the petitioners that no case of criminal breach of trust is made
out when the litigation emanates from an agreement and failure
to deposit any money in the Bank is not an offence either under
section 405 or section 409 of the Indian Penal Code. Further,
the compromise entered into between the parties in the civil suit
amounts to compounding of the criminal offence as well.
28. In support of this submissions, learned
counsel for the petitioners has relied upon the decisions of the
Hon’ble Supreme Court rendered in the case of Velji Raghavji
Patel vs. State of Maharashtra reported as 1964 SCC OnLine
SC 185 and Central Bureau of Investigation, New Delhi vs.
Duncans Agro Industries Ltd. Calcutta reported as (1996) 5
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.51238 of 2015 dt.16-05-2025
19/39
S.C.C. 591.
29. It has been submitted by learned counsel for
the petitioners that omnibus statement of misrepresentation and
absence of detail of alleged offence of cheating amounts to
abuse of the process of law and the criminal proceeding is liable
to be quashed. In support of this submission, he has placed
reliance on the decision rendered in the case of G. Sagar Suri
& Anr. vs. State of UP. & Others reported as (2000) 2 SCC
636.
30. Learned counsel for the petitioners also
relied upon the decision rendered in the case of ALPIC
Finance Ltd. vs. P. Sadashivan & Anr. reported as (2001) 3
SCC 513.
31. It has been submitted by learned counsel for
the petitioners that in case of breach of contract would amount
to cheating only if intention to cheat was existing at the very
inception. If such intention develops later on, there is no
cheating and remedy lies before the civil court by filing a
properly constituted suit. In support of this contention, he has
relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court
rendered in the case of Uma Shankar Gopalika vs. State of
Bihar & Anr. reported as (2005) 10 SCC 336.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.51238 of 2015 dt.16-05-2025
20/39
32. The learned counsel for the petitioner has
also relied upon the decision rendered in the case of Indian Oil
Corporation vs. NEPC India Ltd. & Ors. reported as (2006) 6
SCC 736 and has submitted that in the aforesaid case it has
been held that “any effort to settle civil dispute and claims,
which do not involve any criminal offence, by applying pressure
through criminal prosecution should be depreciated and
discouraged”. He also relied upon the decision rendered in the
case of Rajwant Singh vs. State of Bihar & Anr. reported as
2007 (1) PLJR 406 : 2006 SCC OnLine Pat 463, wherein it has
been held that “for breach of contractual obligation and at best
the petitioner can pursue civil remedy, if such remedy is
available to him and if the facts in the complaint on its face
value is taken as correct”.
33. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also
relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court
rendered in the case of Nikhil Merchant vs. CBI & Anr.
reported as 2008(9) SCC 677, more particularly paragraph nos.
27, 28, 29, 30 and 31, which read as under:-
“27. Having carefully considered the facts of the
case and the submissions of learned counsel in
regard thereto, we are of the view that,
although, technically there is force in the
submissions made by the learned Additional
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.51238 of 2015 dt.16-05-2025
21/39Solicitor General, the facts of the case warrant
interference in these proceedings.
28. The basic intention of the accused in this case
appears to have been to misrepresent the
financial status of the Company, M/s Neemuch
Emballage Ltd., Mumbai, in order to avail of
the credit facilities to an extent to which the
Company was not entitled. In other words, the
main intention of the Company and its officers
was to cheat the Bank and induce it to part with
additional amounts of credit to which the
Company was not otherwise entitled.
29. Despite the ingredients and the factual content
of an offence of cheating punishable under
Section 420 IPC, the same has been made
compoundable under sub-section (2) of Section
320 CrPC with the leave of the court. Of
course, forgery has not been included as one of
the compoundable offences, but it is in such
cases that the principle enunciated in B.S. Joshi
case becomes relevant.
30. In the instant case, the disputes between the
Company and the Bank have been set at rest on
the basis of the compromise arrived at by them
whereunder the dues of the Bank have been
cleared and the Bank does not appear to have
any further claim against the Company. What,
however, remains is the fact that certain
documents were alleged to have been created
by the appellant herein in order to avail of
credit facilities beyond the limit to which the
Company was entitled. The dispute involved
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.51238 of 2015 dt.16-05-2025
22/39herein has overtones of a civil dispute with
certain criminal facets. The question which is
required to be answered in this case is whether
the power which independently lies with this
Court to quash the criminal proceedings
pursuant to the compromise arrived at, should
at all be exercised.
31. On an overall view of the facts as indicated
hereinabove and keeping in mind the decision
of this Court in B.S. Joshi case and the
compromise arrived at between the Company
and the Bank as also Clause 11 of the consent
terms filed in the suit filed by the Bank, we are
satisfied that this is a fit case where technicality
should not be allowed to stand in the way in the
quashing of the criminal proceedings, since, in
our view, the continuance of the same after the
compromise arrived at between the parties
would be a futile exercise.”
34. Learned counsel for the petitioners to make
out a case for warranting interference from this Court has also
relied on the following decisions :-
(i) R.P. Kapur vs. State of Punjab reported as
1960 SCC OnLine SC 21;
(ii) M/s. Pepsi Foods Ltd. & Another v/s Special
Judicial Magistrate & Others reported as
(1998 ) 5 SCC 749 ;
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.51238 of 2015 dt.16-05-2025
23/39
Bhajanlal & Ors. reported as 1992 Supp (1)
SCC 335;
(iv) Madhavrao Jiwajirao Scindia & Ors. vs.
Sambhajirao Chandrojirao Angre &
Others reported as AIR 1988 S.C. 709 :
(1988) 1 SCC 692;
35. On the point that liability of the firm cannot
be enforced against the directors/officers/share holders of the
firm, he has relied upon following judgments:-
(i) Bejai Singh Dugar v/s Certificate Officer
Bhagalpur & Others 1965 BLJR – 341
(DB);
(ii) Smt. Sarla Devi Agrawal vs. State of Bihar
reported as 1979 BBCJ 213 (DB);
(iii) Damodar Prasad Nathani vs. The State of
Bihar & Ors. 1999 (1) PLJR 522;
(iv) Kanhya Lal vs. The vs. the State of Bihar
2002(2) BBCJ 278;
(v) K.K. Ahuja vs. V.K. Vora and Anr. 2009
(10) SCC 48.
36. A counter affidavit has been filed by the
respondent – C.B.I. wherein it has been stated that during
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.51238 of 2015 dt.16-05-2025
24/39
investigation, it has come that petitioner – Vishakha Sindhu,
Director of M/s. Sidhi Export Private Limited in conspiracy
with petitioner-Sindhu Ratna Kul Bhaskar and one Pandey Arun
Kumar Srivastava, obtained funds wrongfully through
fraudulent overdrafts from 26.10.1999 to 09.09.2000. These
overdrafts were given by Pandey Arun Kumar Srivastava
without any power to do so and against the interest of the Bank.
Petitioner-Sindhu Ratan Kul Bhaksar fraudulently transferred
funds from the CD nominal account No.259 to OD account
No.6188 to the tune of Rs.148 Lakh for wiping out the
fraudulent overdrafts and providing the easy money to the firm
of his wife.
37. It has further been stated that Sindhu Ratna
Kul Bhaksar and Pandey Arun Kumar Srivastava in conspiracy
with Vineet Kumar Verma and Qamber Husnain both Directors
of the firm, abused their official position and fraudulently and
dishonestly provided funds to the firm by sanctioning Packing
Credit pre-shipment and post-shipment advance beyond their
lending power. On other occasions, they negotiated some export
bills of M/s. Sidhi Export/Sidhi Overseas and wiped out the
pre-shipment advances of the packing credit account given
beyond the lending power. Further, petitioner-Sindhu Ratan Kul
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.51238 of 2015 dt.16-05-2025
25/39
Bhaksar unauthorisedly debited CD Nominal account no.259
and credited the CD account of Sidhi Export/Sidhi Overseas
Private Limited. Thus, both the accused public servants caused
wrongful loss to the Central Bank of India to the tune of
Rs.241.56 lakh.
38. During investigation, it has also come that
petitioner-Sindhu Ratna Kul Bhaksar was working as scale II
officer on temporary posting at Dak Bunglow Branch of the
Central Bank of India, Patna, during the year 1999 to 2000.
M/s. Sidhi Export Private Limited was having current account
in the Dak Bunglow Branch of the Bank. It has also come
during investigation that on 26.10.1999 overdraft facility was
sanctioned by Pandey Arun Kumar Srivastava, the then Branch
Manager of the bank. The OD account was singly operated by
the petitioner -Visakha Sindhu, the Director of M/s. Sidhi
Export Private Limited, who is the wife of petitioner- Sindhu
Ratna Kul Bhaksar. As such, it was a staff related account and
Pandey Arun Kumar Srivastava was not entitled to sanction any
advance/OD limit to this account. From 26.10.1999, the
petitioner-Sindhu Ratna Kul Bhaksar started obtaining the
overdraft and within a month i.e. by 20.11.99 she obtained
Rs.2,56,980/. On 22.11.99 even this unauthorized OD limit was
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.51238 of 2015 dt.16-05-2025
26/39
crossed as petitioner – Visakha Sindhu further withdrew
Rs. 2,50,375/- and Pandey Arun Kumar Srivastava allowed this
withdrawal. He kept on allowing withdrawal from the said
account beyond the sanctioned OD limit and petitioner- Visakha
Sindhu kept on withdrawing the money. On 14.03.2000 when
the debit balance of this account soared up to Rs.28,71,782/-
Pandey Arun Kumar Srivastava enhanced the OD limit in the
computer to Rs.27.9 Lakh without actually processing and
sanctioning any such fresh limit as a sinister design to hide the
previous repeated illegal overdrawing. The phenomena of
allowing illegal over drawings remained unchecked and the
debit balance of the said account rose to Rs. 46,19,506/- by
withdrawal of Rs.11,02,250/- by petitioner- Visakha Sindhu on
03.07.2000. This also was allowed by Pandey Arun Kumar
Srivastava. Thus, it is established that Pandey Arun Kumar
Srivastava in conspiracy with petitioner- Vishakha Sindhu
disposed of the Bank’s property in violation of the direction of
his Bank and this was done against the interest of the Bank and
for providing wrongful gain to petitioner-Vishakha Sindhu, wife
of petitioner- Sindhu Ratan Kul Bhaskar.
39. After completion of investigation, two
separate charge-sheets were filed on 08.07.2004, Charge Sheet
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.51238 of 2015 dt.16-05-2025
27/39
No.16/2004 against Sindhu Ratan Kul Bhaskar, Pandey Arun
Kumar Srivastava, Vineet Kumar Verma and Qamber Hasnain
and Charge Sheet No.17/2004 against Sindhu Ratan Kul
Bhaskar, Pandey Arun Kumar Srivastava and Vishakha Sindhu.
40. It has also been submitted that even
otherwise the case is of the year 2001 and the discharge
applications of the petitioners were rejected in the year 2015
itself. Further, in this case, charges have already been framed by
the Court below. The stage of the case has also changed.
Therefore, considering the aforesaid facts and subsequent
developments, these applications may be dismissed.
41. Learned counsel for the C.B.I. has placed
reliance on the following judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme
Court :-
(i) State of Odisha vs. Devendra Nath Padhi
reported as (2005) I SCC 568, wherein it has
been held that defence cannot be looked at
the time of cognizance or framing of charge.
(ii) CBI vs. Aryan Singh & Ors. reported as
(2023) 18 SCC 399, wherein it has been
held that at the stage of discharge and/or
quashing of the criminal proceedings, while
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.51238 of 2015 dt.16-05-2025
28/39exercising the powers under Sec, 482 of the
Cr.P.C., the Court is not required to conduct
a mini trial.
(iii) P. Vijayan vs. State of Kerela & Anr.
reported as (2010) 2 SCC 398 wherein it has
been held that the Court while exercising its
judicial mind to the facts of the case in order
to determine whether a case for trial has
been made out by the prosecution, it is not
necessary for the Court to enter into the pros
and cons of the matter or into a weighing
and balancing of evidence and probabilities,
which is really the function of the Court
after the trial starts.
42. I have considered the submissions of the
parties and perused the materials available on record.
43. From the perusal of the records of the case,
prima facie it appears that the accused persons, i.e., petitioner –
Vishakha Sindhu, Director of M/s. Sidhi Export Private Limited
in conspiracy with petitioner – Sindhu Ratan Kul Bhaskar and
one Pandey Arun Kumar Srivastava obtained loan/funds
fraudulently from 26.10.1999 to 09.09.2000. The accused
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.51238 of 2015 dt.16-05-2025
29/39
Pandey Arun Kumar Srivastava without any power and without
any authorization had given the overdraft to the firms and funds
were accordingly transferred from the bank to the O.D. account
of the firms. Huge amount to the tune of Rs.148 Lakhs were
transferred to the bank account of the firm namely, M/s. Sidhi
Exports Private Limited for wiping out the fraudulent
overdrafts and providing easy money to the firm. The accused
Pandey Arun Kumar Srivastava is accused of sanctioning pre-
shipment advances illegally and beyond his lending power to
the firms in conspiracy with them and thereafter wiped out the
aforesaid pre-shipment advance of packing credit account. The
accused public servant wrongfully caused loss to the Central
Bank of India to the tune of Rs.241.56 Lakh.
44. Further, petitioner – Sindhu Ratan Kul
Bhaskar worked as Scale-II officer on temporary posting at Dak
Bunglow Branch of the Central Bank of India and at the
relevant period the firm was having a current account in the
same branch. The overdrafts facility was sanctioned by the
accused Pandey Arun Kumar Srivastava, the then Senior
Branch Manager. This O.D. account was singly operated by the
petitioner- Vishaka Sindhu, wife of Sindhu Ratna Kul Bhaskar
and therefore, it was a staff related account. Pandey Arun
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.51238 of 2015 dt.16-05-2025
30/39
Kumar Srivastava was not authorized to grant any advance OD
limit to this account, yet an overdraft of Rs.2,56,980/- was
obtained by the firm. On 20.11.1999 after crossing the OD limit
petitioner – Vishaka Sindhu further withdrew Rs.2,50,375/-
which was allowed by Pandey Arun Kumar Srivastava.
45. It is apparent that Pandey Arun Kumar
Srivastava has acted beyond his power and has sanctioned
amount beyond the O.D. limit though the account was a staff
related account and the accused persons have used the funds of
the bank illegally for the business expenditure of the firm.
Illegal overdrawing of the said amount has been done to the
tune of Rs.46,19,506/-.
46. The present petitioners have challenged the
order of dismissal of their discharge applications by invoking
section 482 of the Cr.P.C. The law on this subject is well
settled. The Court while considering an application for
discharge has a limited scope of only considering whether
sufficient grounds are available for proceeding with the
criminal case or not. The Court, in such cases, cannot conduct a
mini trial or roving enquiry to evaluate the defence of the
accused as well as to weigh the evidences.
47. From the judgments referred by the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.51238 of 2015 dt.16-05-2025
31/39
petitioners, as discussed above, it is clear that this Court can
exercise its inherent power under section 482 of the Cr.P.C.
only when there is no criminality involved in the case and the
dispute arises out of a purely contractual matter or civil dispute.
Merely because the loan has been repaid by way of
compromises and the parties i.e. the Bank and the firm have
entered into a compromise before the D.R.T. Patna will not be a
ground for setting aside the impugned order by which the
discharge applications filed by the petitioners had been rejected.
48. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of
Central Bureau of Investigation vs. Jagjit Singh reported as
(2013) 10 SCC 686 in paragraph nos. 14 to 16 held has as
under:-
“14. In the present case, the specific allegation made
against the respondent-accused is that he
obtained the loan on the basis of forged
document with the aid of officers of the Bank.
On investigation, having found the ingredients
of cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of
property of the Bank (Section 420 IPC) and
dishonestly using as genuine a forged document
(Section 471 IPC), charge-sheet was submitted
under Sections 420/471 IPC against the
accused persons.
15. The debt which was due to the Bank was
recovered by the Bank pursuant to an order
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.51238 of 2015 dt.16-05-2025
32/39passed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal.
Therefore, it cannot be said that there is a
compromise between the offender and the
victim. The offences when committed in relation
with banking activities including offences under
Sections 420/471 IPC have harmful effect on
the public and threaten the well-being of the
society. These offences fall under the category
of offences involving moral turpitude committed
by public servants while working in that
capacity. Prima facie, one may state that the
bank is the victim in such cases but, in fact, the
society in general, including customers of the
bank is the sufferer. In the present case, there
was neither an allegation regarding any abuse
of process of any court nor anything on record
to suggest that the offenders were entitled to
secure the order in the ends of justice.
16. In the instant case, the High Court has not
considered the above factors while passing the
impugned order [ Criminal Revision No. 719 of
2010, decided on 31-3-2010 (Cal)]. Hence, we
are of the opinion that the High Court erred in
addressing the issue in right perspective.”
(emphasis supplied)
49. In an another decision, the Hon’ble Supreme
Court in the case of Anil Bhavarlal Jain & Anr. vs. The State
of Maharshtra & Ors. reported as 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3823
in paragraph no.14 to 18 has held as under:-
“14. This Court in Gian Singh (supra) has dealt with
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.51238 of 2015 dt.16-05-2025
33/39the powers of the High Court under Section 482
r/w Section 320 of the CrPC and the
consequent authority of the High Court to
quash criminal proceedings, FIRs or
complaints under its inherent jurisdiction as in
contradistinction to the power with criminal
courts for compounding offenses under Section
320 of the CrPC. The High Court observed that
quashing was dependent on the unique
circumstances of each case and though no fixed
category can be established, heinous and severe
offences should not be quashed even if the
parties have settled. However, this Court in
Gian Singh (supra) categorically made an
observation that:
“61. …….. The offences of mental
depravity under the Penal Code,
1860 or offences of moral
turpitude under special statutes
like Prevention of Corruption Act
or the offences committed by the
public servants while working in
that capacity, the settlement
between offender and victim can
have no legal sanction at all.”
15. In the light of above, the facts of the present
case are distinguishable from the facts that
came for consideration before this Court in the
above case relied on by the appellants herein.
16. Another reference can be made to the judgment of
this Court in Parbatbhai Aahir vs. State of
Gujrat wherein it was observed that, economic
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.51238 of 2015 dt.16-05-2025
34/39
offenses involving financial and economic well-
being of the state have implications which lie
beyond the domain of a mere dispute between
the 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 complained of
upon the financial or economic system will
weigh in the balance. Thus, it can be concluded
that economic offences by their very nature
stand on a different footing than other offences
and have wider ramifications. They constitute a
class apart. Economic offences affect the
economy of the country as a whole and pose a
serious threat to the financial health of the
country. If such offences are viewed lightly, the
confidence and trust of the public will be
shaken.
17. A profitable reference in this regard can be
made to the judgment in State v. R Vasanthi
Stanley, wherein this Court declined to quash
the proceedings in a case involving alleged
abuse of the financial system. It was observed
as under:
“15. ……A grave criminal offence or
serious economic offence or for that
matter the offence that has the
potentiality to create a dent in the
financial health of the institutions is not
to be quashed on the ground that there is
delay in trial or the principle that when
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.51238 of 2015 dt.16-05-2025
35/39the matter has been settled it should be
quashed to avoid the head on the system.
That can never be an acceptable
principle or parameter, for that would
amount to destroying stem cells of law
and order in many a realm and further
strengthen the marrow of unscrupulous
litigations. Such a situation should never
be conceived of.
18. In the instant case, it is on record that consent
terms were submitted by the parties before the
DRT. It is admitted that the bank had suffered
losses to the tune of Rs.6.13 Crores
approximately. Hence, a substantial injury was
caused to the public exchequer and
consequently it can be said that public interest
has been hampered. Keeping in view the fact
that in the present case a special statute i.e. PC
Act has been invoked, we are of the view that
quashing of offences under the said Act would
have a grave and substantial impact not just on
the parties involved, but also on the society at
large. As such the High Court committed no
error in declining to exercise its inherent
powers in the present case, thereby refusing to
quash the criminal proceedings.” (emphasis
supplied)
50. In the present case, the offence, as alleged in
the F.I.R. involves defrauding the financial system of the
country by the persons who are responsible officer bearers of
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.51238 of 2015 dt.16-05-2025
36/39
the Bank. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the aforese-quoted
decisions has held that such offences caused adverse ripple
effect in the society and are in the nature of moral turpitude.
When an offence of cheating, fraud etc. has been committed by
the borrower after weaving a conspiracy with the Bank
officials, as alleged in the F.I.R., would not make a case suitable
for interference by this Court.
51. Moreover, this Court at this stage, will not
not go into the merits of the case and examine threadbare the
defence of the accused persons if a strong prima facie case for
trial is made out particularly offences affecting the financial and
economic system. In the present case, the petitioners have failed
to make out a case that the allegations are totally groundless
and therefore, the criminal case should not proceed against
them.
52. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of
State of Gujarat vs. Dilipsinh Kishoresinh Sao reported as
(2023) 17 SCC 688 has held as under:-
“10. It is settled principle of law that at the stage
of considering an application for discharge the
court must proceed on an assumption that the
material which has been brought on record by
the prosecution is true and evaluate said
material in order to determine whether the facts
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.51238 of 2015 dt.16-05-2025
37/39emerging from the material taken on its face
value, disclose the existence of the ingredients
necessary of the offence alleged.
11. This Court in State of T.N. v. N. Suresh Rajan
adverting to the earlier propositions of law laid
down on this subject has held: (SCC pp. 721-
22, para 29)
29. We have bestowed our consideration
to the rival submissions and the
submissions made by Mr Ranjit Kumar
commend us. True it is that at the time of
consideration of the applications for
discharge, the court cannot act as a
mouthpiece of the prosecution or act as
a post office and may sift evidence in
order to find out whether or not the
allegations made are groundless so as to
pass an order of discharge. It is trite that
at the stage of consideration of an
application for discharge, the court has
to proceed with an assumption that the
materials brought on record by the
prosecution are true and evaluate the
said materials and documents with a
view to find out whether the facts
emerging therefrom taken at their face
value disclose the existence of all the
ingredients constituting the alleged
offence. At this stage, probative value of
the materials has to be gone into and the
court is not expected to go deep into the
matter and hold that the materials would
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.51238 of 2015 dt.16-05-2025
38/39not warrant a conviction. In our opinion,
what needs to be considered is whether
there is a ground for presuming that the
offence has been committed and not
whether a ground for convicting the
accused has been made out. To put it
differently, if the court thinks that the
accused might have. committed the
offence on the basis of the materials on
record on its probative value, it can
frame the charge; though for conviction,
the court has to come to the conclusion
that the accused has committed the
offence. The law does not permit a mini
trial at this stage.”
12. The defence of the accused is not to be looked
into at the stage when the accused seeks to be
discharged. The expression “the record of the
case” used in Section 227 CrPC is to be
understood as the documents and articles, if
any, produced by the prosecution. The Code
does not give any right to the accused to
produce any document at the stage of framing
of the charge. The submission of the accused is
to be confined to the material produced by the
investigating agency.”
53. In the present case, based on the materials
produced by the prosecution the Court below was of the
opinion that there are sufficient materials to proceed with the
criminal case and it is settled law that documents/material
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.51238 of 2015 dt.16-05-2025
39/39
produced by the accused cannot be considered at the stage of
discharge.
54. Considering the aforesaid discussions and
also the fact that there is no illegality or irregularity in the
impugned order by which the discharge applications of the
petitioners have been rejected, I do not find any merit in these
applications.
55. In view of the above, these applications
have to fail and therefore, the same are dismissed. The
impugned order dated 28.09.2015 passed by passed by the
learned Special Judge, C.B.I.-I, Patna is hereby affirmed.
(Sandeep Kumar, J)
pawan/-
AFR/NAFR N.A.F.R. CAV DATE 17.01.2025 Uploading Date 17.05.2025 Transmission Date 17.05.2025
[ad_2]
Source link