- (1.) This revisional application is filed at the instance of one of the coaccused in C.G.R. Case No. 1968 of 1989 under Section 120B/420/468/471 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, for quashing. Shorn of unnecessary details, the petitioner was the partner of firm "M/s Ajay Enterprises" along with his brother Kanti Prasad Khaitan. The petitioner opened an account in the Alipore Branch of M/s Bank of Baroda for credit facility. The petitioner discounted six bills drawn on M/s Refractories & Minerals (India), Bombay, aggregating to Rs. 7 lakhs and odd and availed the credit of Rs. 5,43,000/-. At the time of discounting, the aforesaid bills along with the transport receipts issued by Cargo Movers of India was submitted. The bills were presented to the drawee through Dena Bank, Malabar Hill Branch, Bombay, who refused to accept and honour them. The documents were sent back to the bank of Baroda and upon inquiry, it was found that the transport receipts were fabricated. The Bank lodged a complaint with the Superintendent of Police, Central Bureau of Investigation and the case was registered under Section 420/467/468/471/120B of the Indian Penal Code against the partners. In addition to lodging of the complaint, the bank wrote the said partnership firm and its partners and demanded the reimbursement of the amount so credited in the account on availment of the bill discounting facility and the said partnership firm repaid the entire amount together with the interest. The bank refunded the excess amount paid by the partnership firm through its partners which is undisputed. Though the bank did not proceed further as the money was received back but the criminal proceeding initiated on the basis of the complaint continued and is in the stage of trial.
(2.) An argument is advanced by Mr. S. K. Kapoor, the learned senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner that the power of the High Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is wide enough to quash a criminal proceeding registered even on non-compoundable offence despite the embargo created under Section 320 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. He strenuously submits that the offences committed in connection with the commercial transaction is liable to be quashed when both the parties have resolved the disputes and the continuance of the proceeding thereafter shall be in futility. In support of the aforesaid contention, he placed reliance upon the three bench judgment of the Supreme Court in case of Gian Singh v- State of Punjab & Another, 2012 10 SCC 303, GHCL Employees Stock Option Trust v- India Infoline Ltd. & Another, 2013 4 SCC 505 and Central Bureau of Investigation, ACB, Mumbai v- Narendra Lal Jain & Ors, 2014 5 SCC 364. He audaciously submits that the High Court in exercise of the power under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure may quash the proceeding to secure the end of justice and the continuance would result an abuse of the process of Court. He would further submit that the entire money is paid to the bank together with the interest and, therefore, the claim of the bank is fully satisfied, meaning thereby, the bank has no subsisting claim against the petitioner and therefore, the continuance of the criminal proceeding shall be in futility. He submits that an extradiction proceeding is initiated against the petitioner on the basis of the above stale claim and the petitioner is unnecessarily facing the harassment.
(3.) The learned Advocate for the CBI submits that the petitioner along with the other partner came before this Court for quashing the said proceeding which was subsequently dismissed. He further submits that the other partner namely Kanti Prasad Khaitan through another application sought for quashing the proceeding which also resulted into the dismissal thereof. He thus submits that the offences which are not compoundable under Section 320 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the High Court in exercise of inherent power cannot pass an order compounding the offence and placed reliance upon a judgment of the Supreme Court in case of Central Bureau of Investigation v- Jagjit Singh, 2013 10 SCC 686. He would further contend that the bank is dealing with the public money and by using the forged document, a money is taken, even if, it is subsequently paid amounts to embezzlement and the offence deemed to have committed. He was very much vocal that the petitioner was allowed to go abroad by an order of the Court which was misused resulting into the declaration of the petitioner as proclaim offender and an extradiction proceeding has been initiated. Lastly he submits that the conduct of the petitioner is such that no sympathy and/or lenient approach should be adopted least the quashing of the proceeding.;