TMI Blog2014 (4) TMI 1291X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... URT] on a consideration of the totality of the facts and circumstances in which the charges were brought against the accused this Court had come to the conclusion that 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. The Court, thereafter, took into account the fact that the dispute between the parties had been settled/compromised and such compromise formed a part of the decree passed in the suit filed by the bank. After holding that the power Under Section 482 Code of Criminal Procedure to quash a criminal proceeding was not contingent on the provisions of Section 320 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, and taking into account the conclusion recorded in para 28 of the judgment, as noticed above, the Court ultimately concluded that in the facts of the case it would be justified to quas ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... T.K. Rajeev Kumar (A-1), Branch Manager, Indian Overseas Bank, Killipalam Branch, Trivandrum and C. Sivaramakrishna Pillai (A-3) (since deceased) had entered into a criminal conspiracy to obtain undue pecuniary advantage for themselves. Specifically, it was alleged that in furtherance of the aforesaid criminal conspiracy the accused-Appellant dishonestly applied for a car loan of Rs. 5 lakhs and opened a bank account bearing No. 1277 on 24.08.2002 without proper introduction. Thereafter, according to the prosecution, the accused-Appellant furnished a forged agreement for purchase of a second hand Lancer Car bearing No. KL-5L-7447 showing the value thereof as Rs. 6.65 lakhs though the accused-Appellant had purchased the said vehicle for Rs. 5.15 lakhs only. It is further alleged that A-1, by abusing his official position as Branch Manager, dishonestly sanctioned Rs. 5 lakhs towards car loan without prerequisite sanction inspection. It is also alleged that A-1, who did not have the authority to do so, sanctioned education loan of Rs. 4 lakhs under the Vidya Jyothi Scheme to the accused-Appellant for undergoing a course on Digital Film Making at SAE Technology College, Thiruvananthap ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... claims and charges against the accused-Appellant in view of the compromise reached. Placing reliance on the decisions of this Court in Nikhil Merchant v. Central Bureau of Investigation and Anr. (2008) 9 SCC 677 and Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and Anr. (2012) 10 SCC 303 and a recent pronouncement in CBI, ACB, Mumbai v. Narendra Lal Jain and Ors. 2014 (3) SCALE 137 Shri Raval had contended that in view of the settlement arrived at between the bank and the accused-Appellant, the High Court ought to have exercised its power Under Section 482 Code of Criminal Procedure to quash the criminal proceedings against the accused-Appellant. Shri Raval has taken the Court through the details of the allegations made and the charges framed to contend that the same are identical with those in Nikhil Merchant (supra). The charges against the accused in both the cases are identical; the same has been quashed in Nikhil Merchant (supra) which decision has been endorsed by a larger Bench in Gian Singh (supra) and also in Narendra Lal Jain (supra). It is, therefore, contended that the criminal proceeding against the accused-Appellant is liable to be quashed and the impugned order passed by the High C ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t No. 2-bank who had admitted the payment of the entire amount due from the accused-Appellant under the transaction in question. Learned Counsel has, however, submitted that in written acknowledgment issued by the Bank there is no mention regarding any 'settlement' of the criminal case against the accused-Appellant insofar as the bank is concerned. 10. The charges framed against the accused-Appellant, it may be repeated, are Under Section 120B Indian Penal Code read with Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the PC Act and Sections 420/471 of the Indian Penal Code. It is true that in Nikhil Merchant (supra) the charges framed against the accused were also Under Sections 120B read with Section 5(2) and 5(1)(d) of the PC Act, 1947 (Section 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of the PC Act, 1988) and Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 of the Indian Penal Code. However, in para 28 of the judgment in Nikhil Merchant (supra) on a consideration of the totality of the facts and circumstances in which the charges were brought against the accused this Court had come to the following conclusion: 28. The basic intention of the accused in this case appears to have been to misrepresent the fin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... case to a larger Bench necessarily has to be for a reconsideration of the principle of law on which the case has been decided and not the merits of the decision. The decision rendered by any Bench is final inter-parte, subject to the power of review and the curative power. Any other view would have the effect of conferring some kind of an appellate power in a larger Bench of this Court which cannot be countenanced. However, the principle of law on which the decision based is open to reconsideration by a larger Bench in an appropriate case. It is from the aforesaid perspective that the reference in Gian Singh (supra) has to be understood, namely, whether quashing of a non-compoundable offence on the basis of a compromise/settlement of the dispute between the parties would be permissible and would not amount to overreaching the provisions of Section 320 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. In fact, this is the question that was referred to the larger Bench in Gian Singh (supra) and not the merits of the decision in Nikhil Merchant (supra). 13. The decision in Gian Singh (supra) holding the decision rendered in Nikhil Merchant (supra) and other cases to be correct is only an approva ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
