Home Case Index All Cases Indian Laws Indian Laws + SC Indian Laws - 2009 (4) TMI SC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2009 (4) TMI 999 - SC - Indian LawsConspiracy in defrauding the bank - falsification of accounts and forgery of records - Commission of offences u/s 120-B/ 420/467/468 and 471 of the IPC - officers of the Bank had also been prosecuted u/s 13(2) r/w Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention and Corruption Act, 1988 - Application of the provisions of Section 320 of the Code - Debt recovery Tribunal, appellant and the Bank had entered into a settlement for recovery of loan - C.B.I. had returned the title deeds in respect of the property which were kept as security for obtaining the loan from the bank - Appellant filed an application u/s 239 of the Code for discharge - Before HC, it was argued that further continuation of the criminal proceeding, despite repayment of the amount of loan by the appellant, would amount to an abuse of the process of Court and the same should, therefore, be quashed - CBI contended that the criminal case against the appellant was started not only for obtaining loan but also on the ground of criminal conspiracy with the bank officials - HC dismissed the revision application by the appellant. HELD THAT:- It is now a well settled principle of law that in a given case, a civil proceeding and a criminal proceeding can proceed simultaneously. Bank is entitled to recover the amount of loan given to the debtor. If in connection with obtaining the said loan, criminal offences have been committed by the persons accused thereof including the officers of the bank, criminal proceedings would also indisputably be maintainable. When a settlement is arrived at by and between the creditor and the debtor, the offence committed as such does not come to an end. The judgment in the civil proceedings will be admissibile in evidence only for a limited purpose. It is not a case where the parties have entered into a compromise in relation to the criminal charges. In fact, the offence alleged against the accused being an offence against the society and the allegations contained in the FIR having been investigated by the CBI, the bank could not have entered into any settlement at all. The CBI has not filed any application for withdrawal of the case. Not only a charge sheet has been filed, charges have also been framed. At the stage of framing charge, the appellant filed an application for discharge. One of the main accused is the husband of the appellant. The complicity of the accused persons was, thus, required to be taken into consideration for the purpose of determining the application for discharge upon taking a realistic view of the matter. While considering an application for discharge filed in terms of Section 239 of the Code, it was for the learned Judge to go into the details of the allegations made against each of the accused persons so as to form an opinion as to whether any case at all has been made out or not as a strong suspicion in regard thereto shall subserve the requirements of law. The jurisdiction of the Court under Article 142 of the Constitution of India is not in dispute. Exercise of such power would, however, depend on the facts and circumstance of each case. The High Court, in exercise of its jurisdiction u/s 482 of the Code of Criminal procedure, and this Court, in terms of Article 142 of the Constitution of India, would not direct quashing of a case involving crime against the society particularly when both the learned Special Judge as also the High Court have found that a prima facie case has been made out against the appellant herein for framing charge. Therefore, we find no merit in the appeal. It is dismissed accordingly.
|