RAJINDER SINGH Vs. STATE OF TRIPURA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition is filed by the original accused. They seek quashing of a complaint filed by the respondent No.2, Assistant General Manager of State Bank of India on 14.11.2018 before the West Agartala Police Station. In the said complaint, the complainant had alleged that the petitioners herein are the Managing Director and Directors of one M/S. Priya Motors Private Limited. Priya Motors had obtained a loan of Rs.9.50 crores, which was sanctioned by the bank on 20.04.2017. The borrowers had agreed to all terms and conditions of the bank and also executed a letter of guarantee and hypothecation agreement. One of the conditions imposed by the bank at that time was that none of the accused without the prior permission of the bank would open or maintain any account in any other bank. According to the complainant, the accused had willfully breached this condition and it was noticed by the bank that the accused were maintaining the current account with HDFC bank, Agartala and the transactions were being routed through the said account instead of the cash credit account of the State Bank of India. On 07.08.2018, the account of the accused became non-performing account. The complainant alleged that all the accused persons after availing the loan from the State Bank had diverted the funds to the HDFC bank and they had also routed the sale proceeds of the company to the said account in HDFC bank. Thus, the accused had diverted the funds to other bank and not utilized the same for the purpose for which the finance was availed nor funds are available in the form of any other assets. The vehicles hypothecated with the bank were also not available with the borrower company. Thus according to the complainant, the company was unable to pay its debts and the accused had defrauded and cheated the bank and thus diverted the public money.

(2.) The petitioners in the present Criminal Petition seek quashing of the said complaint. At one stage, the petition was disposed of by an order dated 17.05.2019. The petitioners and the bank had given consent terms for repayment of the bank's dues. With the consent of the parties, the FIR was quashed. However, subsequently, the bank filed a Cont. Case (Crl.) No.1 of 2020 and alleged that the accused failed to abide by the terms based on which the FIR was quashed. No amount was repaid contrary to the assurance is given to the Court and which found the basis for quashing the FIR. Such Contempt Petition was disposed of by an order dated 05.03.2020. After recording to the background of the case, the Court expressed an opinion that no usual purpose would be served in taking out contempt proceedings against the petitioners. However, having breached the terms of the agreement on which the FIR was quashed, they would not be allowed to enjoy the benefit of the order in their favour. Resultantly, the previous order disposing of this case dated 17.05.2019 was recalled. This Criminal Petition was revived and would be heard afresh. Since this order dated 05.03.2020 gives the full detail of the background leading to revival of this Criminal Petition, entire order may be reproduced:

(3.) On 17.05.2019 the said quashing petition was disposed of on the basis of settlement between the petitioners and the bank. This was recorded as under: