C.B.I Vs JAGJIT SINGH
Bench: SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA,V. GOPALA GOWDA
Case number: Crl.A. No.-001580-001580 / 2013
Diary number: 30857 / 2010
Advocates: ARVIND KUMAR SHARMA Vs
ANURAG PANDEY
Page 1
-1
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1580 OF 2013 (arising out of SLP(CRL.)No.8762 of 2010)
CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION … APPELLANT
VERSUS
JAGJIT SINGH … RESPONDENT
J U D G M E N T
SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA, J.
Leave granted.
2. By this appeal, the appellantCentral Bureau of
Investigation (‘CBI’ for short) has challenged the
impugned order dated 31st March, 2010 passed by the
High Court of Calcutta in CRR No.719 of 2010. By the
impugned order, learned Judge of the High Court allowed
the application preferred by the respondent, Jagjit
Singh, under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure
Code, 1973 and quashed the proceedings being G.R. Case
No.1508 of 2006 pending before the 12th Court of
Metropolitan Magistrate, Calcutta.
Page 2
-2
3. The said case relates to CBI:SPE:ACB:Kolkata Case
No.R.C. 12(A)/2003 under Sections 420/471 of the Indian
Penal Code. The First Information Report(FIR) in
question was lodged on the basis of a reliable
information which was received in the office of the SP,
CBI, ACB, Kolkata to the effect that one Shri Sanjib
Kumar Chatterjee while functioning as Sr. Manager,
Indian Overseas Bank (IGS), Shreemani Market Branch,
Kolkata during the year 19982000 had entered into a
criminal conspiracy with private persons, namely, Shri
Jagjit Singh, Director of M/s. Tag Reachers (P) Ltd.
(respondent herein), Shri Raj Kumar Agarwal, Shri
Virendra Jain and unknown officers of the Regional
Office, Business Department of Indian Overseas Bank,
Kolkata in order to cause wrongful loss to the said
Bank in the matter of term/demand loans, in favour of
M/s. Tag Reachers (P) Ltd. It was further alleged in
the FIR that in furtherance of said criminal
conspiracy, term/demand loans amounting to Rs.1,94,50
lakhs were fraudulently and dishonestly sanctioned to
the said Company by the Regional Office of Indian
Overseas Bank(IOB), Kolkata and out of the said amount
Rs.1.5 crores remained outstanding due to nonpayment
by the party. All the accounts of parties involved
became inoperative, and this resulted in corresponding
wrongful loss to the said Bank.
Page 3
-3
4. It is further alleged that on the recommendation
of the said Shri Sanjib Kumar Chatterjee, Sr. Manager,
three term loans were sanctioned by the Regional Office
of IOB in August, 1998, October, 1999 and August, 2000
in favour of M/s. Tag Reachers (P) Ltd. for purchase of
13 Nos. of LPG Tankers (4+4+5 respectively) without
proper verification, documentation and by manipulating
exorbitant price of the collateral properties offered
by M/s. Tag Reachers (P) Ltd.
5. The said information has also disclosed that when
M/s. Tag Reachers (P) Ltd. started defaulting the
repayment in the aforesaid term loan accounts, the
accused persons connived together and in pursuance of
the said criminal conspiracy Shri Jagjit Singh as
Director of M/s. Tag Reachers (P) Ltd. approached Shri
Sanjib Kumar Chatterjee, Sr. Manager in the month of
March, 2000 for a demand loan of Rs.32.50 lakhs against
the security of National Saving Certificate/Kishan
Vikash Patra of the face value of Rs.50 lakhs. The said
securities were in the form of NSC for Rs.7 lakhs and
Kishan Vikash Patra of Rs.18 lakhs standing in the name
of the aforesaid Shri Raj Kumar Aggarwal and Kishan
Vikash Patra of Rs.25 lakhs standing in the name of the
aforesaid Shri Virendra Jain. All the NSCs and KVPs
were alleged to be forged and fabricated and were not
issued from the Middleton Row and Park Street Post
Page 4
-4
Offices from where they were shown to have been
reportedly purchased. Similarly, no lien on them in
favour of the IOB were created by the aforesaid two
Post Offices. Lien were found to be forged and no Bank
Officer had in fact ever approached these two Post
Offices for the same. In spite of this and knowing
fully well that the amount of the aforesaid term loans
were diverted by Shri Jagjit Singh to his restaurant
business, Shri Sanjib Kumar Chatterjee, Sr. Manager
recommended sanction of Demand loan for Rs.32.50 lakhs
in favour of M/s. Tag Reachers (P) Ltd. With the help
of unknown officials of the Regional Office of IOB,
Kolkata a demand loan of Rs.32.50 lakhs was sanctioned
in favour of the said company on 30th March, 2002.
6. It has also been disclosed by the said information
that though it was the last day of the financial year,
Rs.27.25 lakhs out of Rs.32.50 lakhs was transferred to
the Term Loan Account of M/s. Tag Reachers (P) Ltd. on
30th March, 2002 itself towards partial adjustments of
the aforesaid term loan account whereas the rest of the
amount was withdrawn by M/s. Tag Reachers (P) Ltd.,
Kolkata.
7. It is found that for the acts of the omissions on
the part of the accused persons, entire Term/Demand
loans became unsecured and inoperative now. The Bank
suffered a loss of Rs.1.5 crores (approx. Rs.1.59
Page 5
-5
crores with accrued interest) since all the loan
accounts have become NPA (Non Performing Assets).
8. It was further alleged that since the above
information reveals commission of offences punishable
under Sections 120B/420/467/468/471/472 IPC and Section
13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of Prevention of
Corruption Act, 1988 by the aforesaid accused persons,
namely, Shri Sanjib Kumar Chatterjee, Sr. Manager,
Indian Overseas Bank, Shri Jagjit Singh, Director of
M/s. Tag Reachers (P) Ltd., Shri Raj Kumar Agarwal,
Shri Virendra Jain and unknown officers of the Regional
Office, Business Department of Indian Overseas Bank,
Kolkata, a regular case was registered against them and
the said case was entrusted to Shri B.R. Roy Inspector
of Police, CBI, ACB, Kolkata for Investigation.
9. It appears that the respondent, Jagjit Singh
thereafter settled the dispute with the Indian Overseas
Bank and paid the amount, pursuant to an order No.31
dated 29th August, 2006 passed by the Presiding
Officer, Debts Recovery Tribunal, Calcutta in Case No.
OA/35/2003. Giving reference to the above said order
passed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal the respondent,
Jagjit Singh moved an application under Section 482 of
Cr.P.C. in C.R.R. No.719 of 2010 before the Calcutta
High Court for quashing the proceedings being G.R. Case
No.1508 of 2006.
Page 6
-6
10. From the impugned order, it would be evident that
in view of such amicable settlement made between the
respondent and the Bank officials, learned Judge of the
High Court by the impugned order set aside the criminal
proceedings with the following observation:
“Be that as it may, there cannot be any rigid formula in regard to permitting the parties to effect a compromise. The offences alleged are undoubtedly non compoundable and certainly, of serious nature.
The question that arises whether in view of such amiable settlement between the parties, any fruitful purpose is likely to be served by allowing the criminal proceedings to proceed further.
In the present case, as indicated earlier and that too, being rightly shown by the learned senior counsel, Mr. De, for reasons not known, the principal accused, Sanjib Kumar Chatterjee, had been left out.
In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, I am inclined to hold that further proceedings of the case before the learned trial court is not likely to serve any fruitful purpose and, as such, in exercise of this court’s inherent jurisdiction, the same be quashed bond at once.
This disposes of C.R.R. No.719 of 2010.”
11. Learned senior counsel for the appellant submitted
that by a mere settlement between two offenders, the
Page 7
-7
personal intent of criminal conspiracy under Sections
420 and 471 IPC which are even otherwise not
compoundable cannot be compounded. According to him,
the impugned order passed by the learned Judge of the
Calcutta High Court is in the teeth of well established
and settled law laid down by this Court.
12. Per contra, according to the respondent, it is
always open to the Court to quash the criminal
proceedings if the dispute is of civil nature and if
matter is settled between the parties. It was contended
that the dispute being civil in nature and the parties
to the dispute being reached settlement, the High Court
rightly set aside the criminal proceedings arising out
of the same very dispute.
13. The very same issue fell for consideration
recently before a threeJudge Bench of this Court in
Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and another, 2012 (10)
SCC 303. In the said case, this Court discussed the
relative scope of inherent power of the High Court
under Section 482 Cr.PC to quash criminal proceedings
involving noncompoundable offences in view of
compromise arrived at between the parties. That was a
case wherein when the special leave petition came up
for hearing, a twoJudge Bench vide order reported in
Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab and another, (2010) 15
SCC 118 doubted the correctness of the decisions of
Page 8
-8
this Court in B.S. Joshi and others vs. State of
Haryana and another, (2003) 4 SCC 675, Nikhil Merchant
vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and another, 2008
(9) SCC 677 and Manoj Sharma vs. State and others,
(2008) 16 SCC 1 and referred the matter to a larger
Bench. Hence, the question before the Bench was with
regard to the inherent power of the High Court under
Section 482 Cr.PC in quashing the criminal proceedings
against an offender who has settled his dispute with
the victim of the crime but the crime in which he was
allegedly involved was not compoundable under Section
320 Cr.PC. Discussing different provisions and taking
into consideration the different decisions of this
Court, the larger Bench in Gian Singh (supra) held as
follows:
“61. The position that emerges from the above discussion can be summarised thus: the power of the High Court in quashing a criminal proceeding or FIR or complaint in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction is distinct and different from the power given to a criminal court for compounding the offences under Section 320 of the Code. Inherent power is of wide plenitude with no statutory limitation but it has to be exercised in accord with the guideline engrafted in such power viz.: (i) to secure the ends of justice, or (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any court. In what cases power to quash the criminal proceeding or complaint or FIR may be exercised where the offender and the victim have settled their
Page 9
-9
dispute would depend on the facts and circumstances of each case and no category can be prescribed. However, before exercise of such power, the High Court must have due regard to the nature and gravity of the crime. Heinous and serious offences of mental depravity or offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc. cannot be fittingly quashed even though the victim or victim’s family and the offender have settled the dispute. Such offences are not private in nature and have a serious impact on society. Similarly, any compromise between the victim and the offender in relation to the offences under special statutes like the Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences committed by public servants while working in that capacity, etc.; cannot provide for any basis for quashing criminal proceedings involving such offences. But the criminal cases having overwhelmingly and predominatingly civil flavour stand on a different footing for the purposes of quashing, particularly the offences arising from commercial, financial, mercantile, civil, partnership or such like transactions or the offences arising out of matrimony relating to dowry, etc. or the family disputes where the wrong is basically private or personal in nature and the parties have resolved their entire dispute. In this category of cases, the High Court may quash the criminal proceedings if in its view, because of the compromise between the offender and the victim, the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak and continuation of the criminal case would put the accused to great oppression and prejudice and extreme injustice would be caused to him by not quashing the criminal case despite full and complete settlement
Page 10
-10
and compromise with the victim. In other words, the High Court must consider whether it would be unfair or contrary to the interest of justice to continue with the criminal proceeding or continuation of the criminal proceeding would tantamount to abuse of process of law despite settlement and compromise between the victim and the wrongdoer and whether to secure the ends of justice, it is appropriate that the criminal case is put to an end and if the answer to the above question(s) is in the affirmative, the High Court shall be well within its jurisdiction to quash the criminal proceeding.”
14. In the present case, the specific allegation made
against the respondentaccused 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 passed by 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
Page 11
-11
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 as 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.
In the instant case, the High Court has not
considered the above factors while passing the impugned
order. Hence, we are of the opinion that the High Court
erred in addressing the issue in right perspective.
16. In such circumstances, we set aside the impugned
judgment and order dated 31st March, 2010 passed by the
High Court in CRR No.719 of 2010 and direct the trial
court to proceed the matter in accordance with law and
to conclude the trial expeditiously. The appeal is
allowed with the aforesaid observation.
…………………………………………………………………….J. (SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA)
Page 12
-12
…………………………………………………………………….J. (RANJAN GOGOI)
NEW DELHI, OCTOBER 1,2013.