- (1.) Leave granted.
(2.) Challenge in these appeals is to the order of learned Single Judge of the Punjab and Haryana High Court. Though the appellants had filed application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short the 'Code') praying for quashing the proceedings in FIR No.73 dated 15.4.2008 registered in respect of offences punishable under Sections 406, 420 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short the 'IPC') in Police Station, Sector 3, Chandigarh, in essence the prayer was for grant of protection under Section 438 of the Code.
(3.) Background facts, highlighted by the appellants, are as follows: Citibank and Citigroup Wealth Advisors (in short 'CWA') are two separate legal entities. Citibank carries on banking activities and is incorporated under the Banking Regulations Act, 1956 and is guided by the directions and guidelines of the Reserve Bank of India; whereas CWA is a wealth advisory body incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 and is regulated by the directions and guidelines as set out by SEBI and the Stock Exchanges. Appellants' (who are employees of Citi Bank) prayer for anticipatory bail are based on the premises that the allegations in the complaint are purely of civil nature since arbitration proceedings have been initiated at the behest of both the complainant and CWA much prior to the institution of the criminal case. The prayer was opposed by the State and the complainant. The High Court noted that the allegation in the FIR was to the following effect: "A perusal of the FIR shows that an amount of Rs.1.10 crores has been fraudulently withdrawn from the saving account of the complainant and shares worth Rs.1.60 crores have been fraudulently withdrawn/embezzled from his demat account maintained in the City Bank with whom the petitioners were employed at the relevant time. The act of embezzlement is attributed to the petitioners and two other persons, who are employees of City Group Wealth Advisors India Private Limited. On these allegations, a case under sections 406/420 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code in Police Station, Sector 3, Chandigarh was registered against the petitioners. " The High Court noted that this was not a case where any protection in terms of Section 438 of Code was to be extended.;