RAJESH MUKHYAN Vs. CBI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present petition has been filed for quashing the FIR No. RC0962016A0004, dtd. 23/6/2016, for the commission of offences punishable under Sec. 120-B read with Ss. 420, 405, 467, 468 and 471 of IPC and Sec. 13(2) read with Sec. 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and subsequent proceedings arising out of the FIR on the basis of the compromise. It has been asserted that the petitioner has amicably resolved the issue with respondent no. 2 and respondent no. 2 has issued a certificate that no amount is to be recovered from M/s Joya Resort and Hotel. The transactions between the petitioner and respondent were commercial and no criminality is attached to it. Respondent No. 2 has initiated steps for the withdrawal of the recovery suit pending before the Debt Recovery Tribunal, Chandigarh. Hence, it has been prayed that the present petition be allowed and the FIR be quashed as per the compromise.

(2.) Respondent No.1-CBI filed a reply asserting that the FIR was registered for the commission of offences punishable under Ss. 120-B, 405, 420, 467, 468 and 471 of IPC and Sec. 13(2) read with Sec. 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act against the petitioner, respondent no. 3, respondent no. 6 and unknown officials of Central Bank of India. As per the complaint, petitioner and respondent no. 3 entered into a criminal conspiracy with unknown officials of the Central Bank of India. They availed a Term Loan of Rs.155.00 lacs and a Cash Credit Limit of Rs.225.00 lacs for the construction of the hotel and resort in the name of Joya Resort and Hotel. An amount of Rs.125.00 lacs was released based on fake/forged bills/invoices to justify the utilization of the amount. They invested only Rs.20.0025 lacs on the project and diverted the rest of the amount. Respondent No. 6 availed a limit of Rs.145.00 lacs in the name of his company. He did not repay the amount and the account was declared as a non-performing asset with an outstanding balance of Rs.165.00 lacs. CBI conducted the investigation and found that Atul Chawla and Gunjan Verma, the then Assistant Managers and Respondent No. 5, the then Senior Manager of Central Bank of India prepared an executive brief recommending the sanction of a Cash Credit Limit of Rs.225.00 lacs with the margin of borrowers as 25% to be renewed within one year, a term loan of Rs.155.00 lacs with the margin of borrowers as 37.33% repayable in 78 equated monthly instalments. The amount was to be drawn in four quarters. The petitioner in connivance with other accused submitted fake/forged bills/invoices/receipts for different amounts to justify the utilization of the fund. Umesh Verma disclosed in his statement under Sec. 164(2) of Cr.P.C. that respondent no.6 had told him about availing the loan and he was shown as the contractor. He opened an account. Money was transferred into his account. Rs.47.00 lacs were withdrawn by petitioner and respondent no. 3 through cheques. Rs.78.00 lacs was transferred to the account of Umesh Verma, who handed over the entire money to respondent No.6. The loan was sanctioned and disbursed without the recommendation of any bank official. The amount was not transferred to suppliers/vendors as per the terms and conditions. No certificate was obtained. The valuation of the construction was found to be Rs.40.00 lacs and M.R. Sharma, who carried out the construction, stated that an amount of Rs.48.00 lacs was spent by him. Therefore, the charge sheet was filed before the Court. The petition is not maintainable. It is not a deal between the private financial institute and the accused. Allegations of forgery and corruption have been established during the investigation. A statement of approval has been recorded. It is not a private wrong/social wrong but has an immense social impact. The quashing of the FIR is not in the interest of justice. Therefore, it was prayed that the petition be dismissed.

(3.) Respondent No.2 also filed a reply asserting that a one-time settlement was arrived at between the bank, borrower and guarantor, which clearly shows that the criminal liability was not compounded. The bank suffered a huge loss of public money by foregoing the huge recoverable due loan amount and interest. A suit for the recovery of Rs.2,10,51,470.00 was filed but only an amount of Rs.89.00 lacs was recovered. The bank had to forego the rest of the amount. The accused cheated the bank by entering into a criminal conspiracy in connivance with each other. Mere payment of a one-time settlement amount will not exonerate the petitioners from criminal liability. Therefore, it was prayed that the petition be dismissed.