Page 1 of 25

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA

CRIMINAL REVISIONAL JURISDICTION

APPELLATE SIDE

Present:-

HON’BLE JUSTICE CHAITALI CHATTERJEE DAS.

CRR 3361 OF 2022

ABHIJIT HALDER

VERSUS

CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION & ANR.

For the Petitioner : Ms. Sekhar Kumar Basu, Sr.Adv.

Mr. Antarikhya Basu, Adv.

Mr. Proshit Deb, Adv.

Mr. Sayan Mukherjee, Adv.

Ms. M. Saha, Adv.

For the CBI : Mr. Anirban Mitra, Adv.

Mr. Subrata Santra, Adv.

For the respondent

Bank : Mr. B.K. Singh, Adv.

Mr. Barun Ghosh, Adv.

Mr. Jayanta Mitra, Adv.

Last heard on : 24.06.2026

Judgement on : 16.09.2026

Uploaded on : 16.09.2026

Page 2 of 25

CHAITALI CHATTERJEE DAS, J.: -

1. This application filed for quashing of the entire proceeding arising out of

FIR no. RCBSK2018E0001 of 2018 dated 06.02.2018 under Section 120B

R/W 420 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 13 (2) R/W 13(1) (d) of the

Prevention of Corruption Act 1988 registered by CBI BS and FC/Kolkata

corresponding to Special Case 01/2019, RC No. 01/2018B and the charge

sheet dated 30.11.2018 filed under Section 120B R/W/ 420 and 468/471 of

the Indian Penal Code and all other proceeding in connection there with.

Brief fact of the case

2. Factual matrix of the case unveils that on the basis of a letter of complaint

dated 05.02.2018 by the Regional Manager of SBI, Regional Business Office

1, Burdwan by the Superintendent of Police, Central Bureau of

Investigation, Banks Securities and frauds Cell, Kolkata alleged the

commission of offences as above. The allegation levelled against the present

petitioner and others as follows:-

3. The Petitioner herein and the other Director of M/s. Umananda Rice Mill

Pvt. Ltd. in collusion with Advocates, cavaliers and unknown bank officials

of SBI had entered into a criminal conspiracy availed a cash credit

limit,Term loan and Bank Gurantees to cheat the State Bank of India,SMR

Burdwan Branch, Burdwan to the tune of Rs. 28.35 Crores (plus interest)

to set up a RICE Mills at the Village Kalna ,District Purba Bardwan and by

fraudulently and dishonestly inducing the bank to sanction the said loan on

the basis of co-lateral securities by creating euitable mortgage of collateral

security of landed property in the name of Madan Kumar Halder and Sri

Page 3 of 25

Gobinda Halder . Later on the property lying in the name of Gobinda Halder

which was already mortgaged on 28.7.2007 was transferred in the names

of Prasenjit Halder one of the director of the borrower company and without

the knowledge of the bank. The said properties transferred, were re-

mortgaged on 8.12.2009 as co-lateral securities for availing loan facility in

favour of an associate company namely M/s. Kalimata Krishipanya

Bipanan Pvt. Ltd. It was alleged that the Directors of M/s Umananda Rice

Mill Pvt. Ltd. diverted the loan funds for accusation of working with

requirement of thai rice mill without any underline business for which the

credit facilities were sanctioned and released. The Directors did not re-pay

the loan and it slipped into NPA with SBI, SMR , Burdwan Branc h on

31.12.2014 causing a wrongful loss to the bank to the tune of Rs. 28.35

crores (plus interest) as on 31.12.2017. On conclusion of investigation the

charge sheet was submitted whereby all the advocates, valuers and bank

known were exonerated of the commission of alleged offence along with one

of the director of the company being Bharati Halder when the present

petitioner and three other director of the company were charge sheeted for

the offence punishable under Section 120B R/W 4 20 and 468/471 of the

Indian Penal Code. The petitioner has come before this for quashing of the

said charge sheet on the ground that he has been falsely implicated and no

role has been attributed against the petitioner who is one of the directors of

the said bank.

Submission

4. The Learned Senior Advocate Mr. Sekhar Basu argued that since the charge

sheet exonerated all the public servants the case no longer attracted the

Page 4 of 25

provision of Prevention of Corruption Act 1988 and the matter was later

transferred before the Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate , Purba Burdwan at

Burdwan which prima facie shows that there were lack of materials against

the petitioner along with other accused person. It is further submitted that

the petitioner is one of the Directors of M/s. Umananda Rice Mill Pvt. Ltd.

and involved in the manufacturing of grain mill production and he was

performing his duties in the said position of a director of the most upright

manner and never derelicted in his duties. The proceeding was initiated

before the Debt recovery tribunal and by way of compromise settlement

entered between the company and the bank and along with other associated

company namely M/s. KKBPL and towards full and final settlement of all its

dues towards the bank in respect of then loan account of both the

companies were duly paid. Despite that that the bank most illegally started

this criminal case against the company suppressing the fact on settlement

between them and on by way of misrepresentation. It is submitted that no

due certificate was issued by the bank on 22.02.2019 which was fully

suppressed in the written complaint. In one hand the bank withdrawn the

case before the Debt recovery Tribunal when initiated a criminals case

which expose their malicious endeavour against the petitioner. It is further

the contention of the Learned Senior Advocate that the order of settlement

was recorded by the DRT and the proceeding filed being OA 352/2015 was

withdrawn.

5. In addition the bank officials who approved the re-mortgaged of the land

which was already mortgaged by the accused persons with the bank under

Page 5 of 25

previous loan amount were discharged by the CBI. Neither the transferee

nor the transferor of the properties in question has raised any grievance or

suggested that the petitioner wrongfully gained from the transfer. The

petitioner and the accused company submitted al the required deed of

conveyance of to the bank to obtain the loan and it was divided into different

loan account and the bank officials segregated this loan account by separate

mortgages and those bank officials are discharged in the charge sheet by

CBI. The petitioner and the accused company submitted all required

documents and deeds of conveyance to the Bank to obtain loan which the

officials divided in different accounts of various types and segregated the

loan accounts by providing separate Mortgages .It is the further contention

of Mr. Sekhar Basu the Learned Senior Advocate that there would be no

adverse effect on public interest or social impact if the matter is quashed ,as

the claims of the parties inter se has been resolved through a full and final

settlement. Continuing with the criminal proceedings and conducting a full-

fledged criminal trial ,if pursued ,would be an extremely costly endeavour in

terms of expenditure. Of precious judicial time and would be an

unnecessary burden on the judicial system.

6. The learned Senior Advocate further put reliance on the decisions reported

in Tarina Sen versus Union of India

1

para 14–17, Gian Singh versus

State of Punjab

2

para 61, Shiji vs Radhika

3

para 17, CBI versus

1

2024 SC online SC 2696

2

(2012) 10 SCC 303

3

(2011) 10 SCC 705

Page 6 of 25

Duncans Agro Industries Limited

4

and K Bharathi Devi versus state of

Telangana

5

.

7. Per Contra the learned advocate representing the opposite party no.2

submitted that the Opposite Party no.2 is a financial institution being State

Bank of India under supervision of Reserve Bank of India. A complaint was

lodged by then Regional Manager dated 7.2.2018 against the petitioner and

other Directors of M/S Kali Mata Krishipanya Bipanan PVT Limited along

with other unknown bank officials of SBI alleging commission of offences

under Prevention of Corruption Act as well as under Section 420/120 B of

Indian penal code. On conclusion of investigation, the CBI submitted the

charge sheet under section 120B/420/468/471IPC against the petitioner

and other accused persons while exonerating the bank officials from all the

charges. The learned Magistrate took cognizance against the present

petitioner along with other accused persons against whom the charge sheet

was submitted. It is further contended that the investigation has established

that the petitioner being a Director had submitted the fudged documents

and misrepresented to the Bank and obtained loan to the tune of Rs. 300

lacs later enhanced to Rs. 400 lacs on 20.9.2014. , which is a serious and

grave economic offences committed by the accused persons. It is argued by

the Learned Counsel that one time settlement between the parties cannot

absolve the criminal liabilities of the petitioner, specially when the offence

has a greater ramification and has societal impact. The economic offence

against the bank on account of non-payment of the loan amount and any

4

(1996) 5 SCC 591

5

(2024) 10 SS 384

Page 7 of 25

misrepresentation made to obtain loan and subsequent settlement cannot

justify quashing of criminal proceedings and in such situation it would

encourage the wrongdoers to further commit economic offence and in such

eventualities, not only the government revenues, but also the public faith on

the financial institution will suffer and impacted the society in the evil way.

Put reliance on the decision of Central Bureau of investigation versus

M/S. Sarvodaya Highways Limited

6

, and Gian Singh versus State of

Punjab (Supra).

8. The learned Advocate representing the Central Bureau of Investigation

strongly opposes the contention of the petitioner on the ground that the

charge sheet has been submitted against the petition and under section

120B read with section 420 of the Indian penal code and since the petitioner

was not the public servant, it was transferred to the court of learned Chief

Judicial Magistrate and upon submission of charge sheet by CBI allegations

of the answering Opposite Party has been further fortified. A mere

repayment of the loan /misappropriated amount followed by amicable

settlement did not exonerate the accused of the criminal offences alleged to

have been committed by him. The repayment and the settlement with the

bank by repaying the amount fortified the allegations has been made in the

first information report, culminating into a charge sheet and requires a full

trial thereof. It is further argued that the Hon’ble Supreme Court clearly

stated that mere repayment of the defalcated amount which is taken as loan

by the help of fudged document, including deed which was earlier mortgaged

6

2025 INSC 1359

Page 8 of 25

and knowing fully well, the bank official of SBI, AD, Kalna Branch as well as

SBI, SME, Burdwan Branch deliberately accepted the multiple mortgage of

the same property and renewed the account time to time apart from the

fresh sanction. That is a wrongful loss of ₹412 lakhs excluding interest on

31.12.2017 by the bank and after the compromise settlement in the loan

account, the total amount of loss of the bank is of ₹3.11cr. Therefore, the

petitioner must face the trial. The learned advocate relied upon the decisions

reported in CBI versus Maninder Singh

7

para 16, 17, 18, 20; Rumi Dhar

versus The State of West Bengal and A nother

8

, Gian Singh versus

state of West Punjab

9

para 58, 60, 61, State of Maharsahtra through

CBI Vikram Anantria Doshi and O thers

10

, paragraph 9, 14, 16, 26, 27

Sushil Suri versus CBI

11

, Satya Narayan Sharmar versus S tate of

Rajasthan

12

, CBI versus A. Rabi Chandra Prasad

13

, Sri Arup Kumar

Bhowmick versus CBI, Anti-Corruption Branch

14

. Accordingly, prayed for

dismissal of this Revisional application.

Analysis

9. Heard the submission of Learned Advocates perused the materials on

record. It appears that two proceedings were initiated against the petitioner

being Special Case 1 of 2019 and Special case no. 2 of 2019 and two

revisional application has been filed for quashing of the said charge sheet

7

(2016) 1 SCC 389

8

(2009) 6 SCC 364

9

(2012) 10 SCC 303

10

(2014) 15 SCC 29

11

(2011) 5 SCC 708

12

(2001) 8 SCC 607

13

(2009) 6 SCC 351

14

CRR 918/2020

Page 9 of 25

submitted against the present petitioner along with the entire proceedings.

The charge sheet by CBI against the petitioner in Special Case no. 2 of 2019

is under Section 120B read with Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code and

exonerated from the charge under Prevention of Corruption Act. In Special

Case no. 1 of 2019 which is the subject matter of this present revisional

application the charge sheet was submitted under Section 120B read with

420 and 468/471 of the Indian Penal Code. On close scrutiny of the charge

sheet submitted by the CBI , submitted against the present petitioner

demonstrate that it was found that the petitioner is one of the Director and

guarantors of M/s. Umananda Rice Mill Pvt. Ltd. and was also an

authorised signatory on the account M/s. Umananda Rice Mill Pvt. Ltd. and

he himself signed almost all instruments through which the loan funds of

accused company were diverted to the sister compan ies namely M/s.

Umarpur Rice Mill Pvt. Ltd. and M/s. KKMBPL for unrelated purpose

without putting actual business. He also did not re-pay the loan and the

loan account slipped into NPA. In addition the accused directors submitted

false tax invoices falsely showing purchase of machinery actuall y not

purchasing the same but to justify utilisation of term loan fund. The

petitioner is common director of these companies and sufficient oral and

documentary evidences are available to prove his complicity in this case.

Therefore the aforesaid act on his part establishes commission of offences

under Section 120B r/w 420/468/471 and substantive offences thereof. It

is further transpires that the compromise was effected. It further reveals

that a compromise proposal for Rs. 7.5 crores for settlement of loan account

number of Umananda Rice Mill Pvt. Ltd. and KKBPL was made to the

Page 10 of 25

Deputy/ Assistant General Manager, State Bank Manager on behalf of

Umananda Rice Mill Pvt. Ltd. on 10.10.2017.

10. The SBI also accepted such offer towards full and final settlement of his

dues on 24.01.2018 in respect of outstanding dues of Rs.28.35 crores for

Umananda Rice Mill Pvt. Ltd. and KKBPL outstanding of Rs. 4.12 crores. It

was also intimated by SBI while accepting such further offer for settlement

that since an FIR has been lodged by the Regional Manager of RB O-I,

Burdwan and a case is pending the OTS/compromise settlement for the civil

liability will not have any bearing whatsoever on the criminal cases filed and

the proceedings initiated against the Umananda Rice Mill Pvt. Ltd. and

KKBPL would not in any way be pre -judicial to the criminal case of any

investigating agency. It was also made clear to the mentioned borrower

which includes the present petitioner that mere re-payment of the loan

under the compromise settlement cannot exempt the borrower/guarantors

from the criminal proceeding pending against them in any court of law. In

this connection it was clarified that the criminal case will not be withdrawn

and will be taken to its logical conclusion despite having compromise

settlement. The SBI issued no due certificate on 23.02.2018 to Umarpur

Rice Mill Pvt. and on 10

th

June, 2019 and informed that in case of M/s.

KKBPL and Umarpur Rice Mill Pvt. Ltd. the DRT suit had bee n withdrawn

and is under process for Umananda Rice Mill Pvt. Ltd.In the case of

O.A/362 of 2015 SBI Vs Umarpur Rice Mill Pvt. Ltd. and Ors. It was

submitted on behalf of the bank and the matter has already been settled

and filed a withdrawal application along with no due certificate on

Page 11 of 25

31.01.2019. The Presiding Officer of Debt Recovery Tribunal one Kolkata

found that the loan amount of Rs. 18,5,46,461.49 was settled through OTS

scheme on an amount of Rs. 9, 34, 70,000 and the bank has received full

and final payment and there is no due pending against the defendant and

accordingly the O.A. 362 of 2015 was disposed of. A withdrawal petition was

filed in O.A.352 of 2015 which was between State Bank of India Vs. M/s.

KKBPL and the proceeding was and O.A. 352 /2015 was disposed of as

settled. The settlement amount of 7.5 Crores as found in the letter of

compromise dated 10.10.2017 and is not found in the order of disposal of a

proceeding which appear to be O.A. 352/3015 between SBI Vs. M/s. KKBPL.

The order dated 31.01.2019 was passed in O.A. 362/2015 SBI Vs. Umarpur

Rice Mill Pvt. Ltd. This matter was listed for clarification after the argument

was over and before this court the Chart furnished by the petitioner disclose

that towards the loan amount of Rs 28.35Crores it has been settled at Rs.

6.49 crores and the proceeding being OA 363/2015 pending before the DRT

is withdrawn. The No dues Certificate submitted by Bank on 22.2.2019.

11. Therefore, it is not in dispute that the present petitioner being one of the

director and guarantor of Umanandan Rice Mill did not pay the entire loan

amount. As a result, the account was declared as NPA and the proceeding

was initiated before the Debt Recovery Tribunal and during pendency a

settlement arrived between the bank and the present petitioner and

obtained a “No dues certificate”. The issue now to be decided is after the

compromise settlement has been affected in respect of a loan by the bank

with the borrower after issuing a “No dues certificate”, whether attracts the

Page 12 of 25

criminal proceedings lodged against the bank officials and the borrower

alleging commission of offence of fraud and cheating are sustainable.

12. In the decision of Central Bureau of Investigation versus Maninder

Singh (Supra) it was held that “the allegation against the respondent is

“forgery” for the purpose of cheating and use of forged documents as genuine

in order to embezzle the public money”. Such economic offences are public

wrongs or crimes, committed against society and gravity and magnitude of

public at large. It was held that Court must not be swayed by return of

money to bank, which has been defrauded, but must also consider society

at large. It was further held that instant offence was well-planned, and

committed with deliberate design with an intention of personal profit,

regardless of consequence to society at large. Cheating of bank exposit fiscal

impurity and such financial fraud is an offence against society at large. It

was further held that “to quash the proceeding merely on the ground that the

accused has settled the amount with the bank would be a misplaced

sympathy”. In the said case that was preferred challenging the order of the

High Court of Delhi by which the High Court exercising its inherent power

under section 482 Cr.P.C quashed the Criminal Proceedings under Section

420, 467, 468 and 471 IPC read with Section 120B IPC. A complaint was

lodged by chief vigilance officer of New Bank of India against the two persons

who introduced themselves as proprietor of. M/S fashion India and M/s.

Ronnie Export respectively and opened their current accounts with their

branch in Ludhiana. One manager allowed advance amount towards ₹5.31

Lakhs to these two firms on production of bill of lading, GR for another bills

Page 13 of 25

and those foreign bills purchased by the bank on 27.11.1986 returned

unpaid. During enquiry made by the bank, the bill of lading were found

forged. The criminal conspiracy hatched with the respondent and other

accused during the period of November – December 1986, with the intention

to cheat New Bank of India to the tune of Rs. 10.62 Lakh. After four years,

the accused was arrested by CBI and charge was framed and then this

application under Section 482 Cr.P.C was moved for quashing on the

ground that a settlement is arrived between the parties and amounts are

repaid to the bank. It was observed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that “the

High Court while exercising its inherent power ignored all the facts viz. the

impact of the offence, the use of the State Machinery to keep the matter

pending for so many years coupled with the fraudulent conduct of the

respondent”. The order of the High Court was set aside.

13. In the case of Rumi Dhar vs The state of Bengal and another (Supra)

the applicant and her husband along with various others officers of Oriental

Bank of commerce were prosecuted for alleged commission of offences under

Section 120B/420/467/468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The

officers of the bank were also prosecuted under various sections of

Prevention of Corruption Act. The charge sheet was filed against the

appellant and several others and the applicant was charged for taking the

benefit of overdraft between the period without furnishing any security. The

bank filed an application for recovery thereof before the DRT and later on

the appellant and Bank entered into a settlement pursuant whereto or in

furtherance a sum of ₹25.51 Lakhs was paid. CBI had returned the title

Page 14 of 25

deeds in respect of the property which were kept as security for obtaining

the loan from the bank. An application was filed under Section 239 of the

code for discharge on the ground of arriving at settlement between her and

the bank. The prayer was rejected by the Learned Special Judge, considering

that the question whether there was any criminal intention on the part of

the lady accused in this crime is a question to be decided in the trial. It was

observed that the Appellant is said to have taken part in conspiracy in

defrauding the bank and serious charges of falsification of accounts and

forgery of records have also been alleged. The well settled principle of the law

is that-

“14. …..in a given case, a civil proceeding and

criminal proceeding can proceed simultaneously.

Bank is entitled to recover the amount of loan given to

a debtor. If in connection with obtaining the said loan,

any criminal offences have been committed by the

persons accused thereof including the officers of the

bank, criminal proceedings would also indisputably

be maintainable.

15. When a settlement is arrived at by and between

the creditor and debtor, the offence committed as

such does not come to an end. The judgement of a

tribunal in a civil proceeding and that too when it is

rendered on the basis of a settlement entered into by

and between the parties, would not be of much

relevance in a criminal proceeding, having regard the

provisions contained in Section 43 of the Evidence

Act, 1872. The judgement in the civil proceedings will

be admissible in evidence only for a limited purpose.”

Page 15 of 25

It was further observed that “the offence alleged against the accused being an

offence against the society and the allegations contained in the first

information report having been investigated by the central bureau of

investigation, the bank could not have entered into any settlement at all”.

14. In the case of Gian Singh versus State of Punjab and Anr. (supra ) as

relied upon by both the petitioner as well as the CBI it was held that in

respect of serious offences like mental depravity, murder, rape, dacoity etc.

or under special statute like prevention of corruption Act or offences

committed by public servants, while working in their capacity as public

servants, cannot be questioned, even though victim or victims, family and

offender have settled the dispute. Such offences are not private in nature

and have a serious impact on society.

15. Similarly in the case of State of Maharastra through CBI vs Vikram

Anantrai Doshi and Ors. (supra) it was held that while quashing criminal

proceeding involving non-compoundable offences the nature and gravity of

offence and its societal impact to be considered. It was further held that the

obligation mentioned in Gian Singh(Supra) to be applied and payment of

money fraudulently obtained from Banks and issue of “No dues Certificate’

not enough.

The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the year 2011 in the case of Sushil

Suri(Supra) in connection with Bank Scam and conspiracy to fraudulently

obtained loan ,approved the order of refusal to quash the proceeding by the

High court and did not consider the defence submission that the bank loan

Page 16 of 25

has been paid to the Bank, no monetary loss occurred and continuation of

criminal proceeding against the Bank and all accused was not proper.

The decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court passed in Satya Narayan Sharma

(supra) relates to offences under Prevention of corruption Act and hence is

distinguishable with the present case being no charge framed under the said

provision.

16. The bone of contention of the of the learned Senior Advocate mostly

revolves around the one time settlement effected by and between the

petitioner and bank which was fully paid by the petitioner and the intention

to cheat from the inception cannot be established, which is the foundation

of Section 420 of Indian Penal Code and the role attributed as found from

the Charge sheet no ingredients to commit an offence under Section 420 IPC

can be found.

The above judgements as relied upon on behalf of CBI do not support the

contention of the petitioner that merely one time settlement with the Bank

in respect of the loan amount despite specific allegation of fraud against the

Accused persons do not per se can be a ground for quashing the criminal

charges .

17. On perusal of the decision of Tarina Sen versus India of India (Supra)

relied upon by the petitioner, the charges included offences under the Indian

Penal Code and Prevention of Corruption Act, and the High Court

questioned the criminal proceedings against the appellants /accused on the

ground that the settlement reached between the borrower and the bank. It is

Page 17 of 25

stated that in commercial, financial or matrimonial disputes where the issue

is result privately, the High Court should use its power under Section 482

Cr.P.C to terminate criminal proceedings, especially when the chance of

conviction is low, and continuation would be oppressive. In this case, also, a

FIR was lodged alleging that a loan application was submitted on behalf of

Clarian travels for the purpose of securing funds to purchase new cars. The

loan application was signed by the appellants on behalf of said travels and

loan was sanctioned by the bank official without keeping any security or

post-dated cheques. No repayment was ever made and that bank official did

not pursue the same. It was also alleged that previously a similar loan

application was submitted on behalf of another company for the same

purpose for securing funds to purchase new cars against the same accused

who sanctioned the loan which was received by the directors of company

IGPL. The accused deposit 36 post-dated cheques, placed for clearing by the

successor of said Ajay Kumar Behera the branch manager and bounced. A

proceeding was initiated before Debt recovery Tribunal, it was settled

between the parties by one time settlement and the loan account was

declared as being closed. The proceeding before the DRT was disposed of as

a full and final payment towards the dues. After that the application was

filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C before the High Court of Orissa seeking

quashing of all proceedings.

18. In the decision CBI vs M/S Sarvodya Highways Ltd. (Supra) as relied

upon on behalf of Bank, one time settlement of cash credit liability was

settled with the bank and on the basis of settlement the Directors of

Page 18 of 25

Sarvodaya Highways Ltd. approached the High Court seeking quashing of

the FIR and Charge sheet since a complaint was lodged and the quashing

was allowed. The matter travelled up to Hon’ble Apex Court where the point

was raised by CBI after inquiry found fabricated document used to

procure cash credit facility and the One time Settlement was under

compulsion since the account of the defaulter Company was declared to be

NPA and the proceeding started at DRT, so merely because a settlement was

arrived per se cannot be a valid ground for quashing the crimin al

proceeding .The Hon’ble Supreme court after going through the reason

assigned by the High Court observed that the High Court failed to advert

to the vital facts which were-

“i) That there was a specific finding in the

chargesheet that the defaulter company through its

directors had submitted fabricated documents and

misrepresented to the Bank for the purpose of

procuring the cash credit facility.

ii)That the appellant-CBI, on the basis of evidence

collected during investigation found that the offences

of criminal conspiracy, fabrication of documents ,and

offences under the PC Act were clearly made out .

(iii) That sanction for prosecution had been duly

issued against the then Bank Manager, Mr. Nishan

Lal.

(iv) That the amount of settlement under the one- time

settlement did not cover the actual amount due to the

Bank and that there was a deficit of more than 5

Page 19 of 25

crores plus interest which was a direct loss to the

public exchequer.”

The Hon’ble Court took note of Gian Singh (Supra ) which expressly

prohibits quashing of proceedings of a criminal case on the strength of a

compromise where loss to public exchequer is evident and the offences

under the PC Act, 1988 are applied.

In the case in hand the CBI did not find any materials for commission of

offence under the P.C Act and further exonerated all the Bank officials from

all the charges and submitted the Charge sheet only against the petitioner

and other private persons under Section 420/120B IPC.

19. In the case of K. Bharthi Devi versus State of Telangana (Supra) Credit

facilities were favoured in the group loan account by complainant bank and

subsequently the Group loan account was declared NPA and complainant

Bank approached DRT for recovery of amounts due .It was found in that

proceeding that the Title Documents placed before the Bank were fake and

forged and fabricated and accordingly charge sheet submitted. After filing

the Charge sheet the accused approached the Bank and offered one time

settlement which was accepted and the loan account was closed .The prayer

for quashing made after such settlement was refused by the High Court and

the issue arose whether the continuation of the criminal proceedings against

the appellant would be justified or not .

Page 20 of 25

20. The Hon’ble Supreme Court considered the decision of CBI VS Duncuns

Agro Industries Ltd.

15

, Nikhil Merchant vs CBI

16

,Gian Singh vs State of

Punjab

17

, CBI vs Narendra Lal Jain and others (2014) 5 SCC 364 ,

Narinder Singh and others v. State of Punjab and another

18

, Gold

Quest International Private Limited v. State of Tamil Nadu and

others

19

, CBI Vs Sadhu Ram Singla

20

, Rumi Dhar vs State of West

Bengal (Supra) and held that the FIR and the Charge sheet are pertaining

to the dispute concerning the loan transaction availed by the accused

persons one hand and the Bank on the other hand .Admittedly they settled

the matter and the borrower have paid under OTS .After receipt of the

amount under OTS ,the Bank had also de cided to close the loan Account.

The dispute involved predominantly had overtures of a civil dispute. Apart

from that in view of the settlement between the parties in the proceeding

before DRT, the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak .Hence

observed that continuation of the criminal proceedings would put the

accused to great oppression and prejudice.

21. In the decision of Mohammad Ibrahim and Ors. vs State of Bihar and

Anr.

21

the Hon’ble Apex court discussed about the criteria for section 468

IPC and in paragraph 16 & 17 observed;

“16. There is a fundamental difference between a

person executing a sale deed claiming that the

15

(1996) 5 SCC 591

16

(2008) 9 SCC 677

17

(2012) 10 SCC 303

18

(2014) 6 SCC 466

19

(2014) 15 SCC 235

20

(2017) 5 SCC 350

21

(2009) 8 SCC 751

Page 21 of 25

property conveyed is his property, and a person

executing a sale deed by impersonating the owner or

falsely claiming to be authorised or empowered by

the owner, to execute the deed on owner's behalf.

When a person executes a document conveying a

property describing it as his, there are two

possibilities. The first is that he bonafide believes

that the property actually belongs to him. The second

is that he may be dishonestly or fraudulently

claiming it to be his even though he knows that it is

not his property. But to fall under first category of

“false documents”, it is not sufficient that a document

has been made or executed dishonestly or

fraudulently. There is a further requirement that it

should have been made with the intention of causing

it to be believed that such document was made or

executed by, or by the authority of a person, by

whom or by whose authority he knows that it was

not made or executed.

17. When a document is executed by a person

claiming a property which is not his, he is not

claiming that he is someone else nor is he claiming

that he is authorised by someone else. Therefore,

execution of such document (purporting to convey

some property of which he is not the owner) is not

execution of a false document as defined under

section 464 of the Code. If what is executed is not a

false document, there is no forgery. If there is no

forgery, then neither section 467 nor section 471 of

the Code are attracted.”

In the instant case no allegation against this petitioner of filing any forged

document or execution of any document which is forged. He has not claimed

Page 22 of 25

to be authorised by anyone else. The allegation regarding transfer of

property was not against the petitioner.

22. In a recent decision the Hon’ble Supreme Court has discussed a similar

issue in the case of Vijay Kumar Kela and Another versus CBI and

Another

22

where the charges were under Section 420 and 471 of the Indian

Penal Code. The question arose that the proceeding if can continue after

settlement of the loan account by way an approved compromise. The Hon’ble

Supreme Court discussed further judicial pronouncement and the

observation of the three Judges Bench where the question was whether the

inherent power of the High Court to quash the criminal proceeding against

an offender who had settled his dispute with the victim of the crime but the

crime is not compoundable under Section 320 IPC should be invoked or not.

The Larger Bench held that the power of High Court in exercise of its

inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C is distinct and different from

the power given to a criminal Court for compounding the offence under

Section 320 Cr.P.C.. 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. Similarly, a compromise between the victim and the offender in

relation to offences under special statute like Prevention of Corruption Act

or offences committed by public servants while working in that capacity

cannot provide for any basis for quashing criminal proceeding involving

such offences. It was however observed considering the criminal cases

having overwhelmingly and pre dominantly civil favour stand on a different

22

2026 INSC 588

Page 23 of 25

footing for the purposes of quashing particularly the offences arising from

commercial, financial, mercantile, civil, partnership or such like

transactions or for that matter matrimonial dispute, where High Court may

quash the criminal proceedings if in its view that the possibility of conviction

is remote and bleak on account of the compromise arrived at between the

parties and the continuation of the criminal case would put to the accused

to great operation.

23. The Hon’ble Supreme Court also considered the decision of Nikhil

Merchant (Supra), Gian Singh (Supra), Narendra Singh (Supra) etc.

where after the settlement bank had closed the loan account or the

settlement between the DRT is noted , the possibility of conviction is remote

and bleak the proceeding can be quashed. Applying the said principle the

Hon’ble Supreme Court considering that the original a pplication was

dismissed as withdrawn by DRT after receiving money towards full and final

settlement and it was certified that the compromise amount was in terms of

the RBI policy guidelines and the belated criminal proceeding initiated after

withdrawing the proceeding from the DRT would not only be oppressive qua

the appellant but would also amount to abuse of process of the Court

accordingly focussing on the settlement of commercial disputes the appeal

was allowed and the order of High Court refusing to quash the charge sheet

was set aside.

24. In the instant case the complaint was lodged during pendency of the DRT

proceeding and while investigation was going on the settlement was arrived

between the parties and the Bank on whose behalf the complaint was lodged

Page 24 of 25

accepted the proposal for settlement. By filing affidavit in opposition the CBI

however did not deny that there was no settlement or no due certificate was

not issued but it is categorically stated that mere re-payment of loan to the

bank could not exonerate the accused from the criminal proceeding. In the

instant case charges are not only with respect to Section 420, 120B R/W

420 Indian Penal Code but also with regard to 468 and 471 of the Indian

Penal Code but no ingredients could be found which can attract Section 468

IPC against the present petitioner. No allegation of forging his signature or

submitting any forged document can be found. Admittedly all the deeds

were submitted which were due scrutinised by the officials of Bank and after

verifying the same by the empanelled Advocates of the Bank and the valuer

and then only their proposal for enhance was considered. The Deed which is

shown as re-mortgaged is not by the petitioner but by one Prasenjit Halder .

The CBI did not find any ingredients top attract any of the allegations made

by a bank official against the other bank officials and exonerated them. No

materials could be found to establish that any offence under prevention of

corruption Act took place.

Conclusion:

25. In the touchstone of the above decision of the Supreme Court and upon

considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this court is of the view

that to allow to continue with the proceeding against the present petitioner,

after the compromise has been affected between the bank and the borrower

and the role attributed by the presen t petitioner in the charge sheet

submitted on behalf of CBI, would be an abuse of the process of court.

Page 25 of 25

26. Hence this court is inclined to allow the prayer made by the petitioner.

Accordingly, this Revisional application stands allowed.

27. The entire proceeding arising out of FIR no. RCBSK2018E0001 of 2018

dated 06.02.2018 under Section 120B R/W 420 of the Indian Penal Code

and Section 13 (2) R/W 13(1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1988

registered by CBI BS and FC/Kolkata corresponding to Spe cial Case

01/2019, RC No. 01/2018B and the charge sheet dated 30.11.2018 filed

under Section 120B R/W/ 420 and 468/471 of the Indian Penal Code and

all other proceeding in connection there with pending before the Learned

Magistrate is hereby quashed qua the petitioner .

28. All other connected applications, if any, hereby stand disposed of.

29. Urgent Photostat certified copies of this order, if applied for, be supplied to

the parties upon compliance of all necessary formalities.

[CHAITALI CHATTERJEE (DAS) , J.]