EDINGSON KHONGNOHBEH Vs. CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Ms. L. Naaz, learned counsel appearing for the applicants and Dr. N. Mozika, learned DSGI appearing for the respondent. By this application the applicants have prayed for stay of the proceeding of the Special (CBI) Case No.1 of 2021 pending before the Special Judge (CBI), Shillong.

(2.) The learned counsel for the applicants submits that though allegation of intentionally and dishonestly defrauding the Meghalaya Rural Bank has been made against the applicants, no supporting evidence has been brought in the charge-sheet. She submits that the allegation of preparation of false stock statement and hypothecation agreement is not supported by any documentary evidence. According to the learned counsel, the entire prosecution case has arisen because of non-refund of loan advanced by the Meghalaya Rural Bank to the applicants and the matter is purely civil in nature. She submits that an attempt has been made to give criminal colour to the matter by initiating the criminal proceeding against the applicants without any legal basis. She submits that the applicants have already settled/compromised the matter with the bank and in support of her submission refers to the letters dtd. 7/9/2019 and 26/5/2023. She further submits that the applicants have already paid Rs.61,91,213.00, Rs.9,98,218.00 and Rs.65,42,909.00 respectively as a token of acceptance of the compromise.

(3.) It is also submitted that the learned Special Judge (CBI) did not consider the contentions raised on behalf of the applicants and passed the impugned order dtd. 6/8/2025 in Special (CBI) Case No.1 of 2021 directing for framing of charges U/s 120B/420/403/468/471 without there being any incriminating material against the applicants. The learned counsel submits that mere breach of contract cannot give rise to criminal prosecution for cheating unless fraudulent or dishonest intention is shown right at the beginning of the transaction and places reliance on the decisions of the Apex Court in Mohammed Ibrahim and ors v. State of Bihar and anr (2009) 8 SCC 751, Sheila Sebastian v. R. Jawaharaj and anr (2018) 7 SCC 581 and Hridaya Ranjan Prasad Verma and ors v. State of Bihar and anr (2000) 4 SCC 168 to contend that every breach of contract cannot be an offence of cheating and that to attract the offence of forgery, the making of a false document has to be established. She submits that the applicants are willing to clear the remaining amount to the Meghalaya Rural Bank in terms of the settlement and, as such, the criminal proceeding initiated against them is absolutely uncalled for and prays that the proceeding of the Special (CBI) Case No.1 of 2021 be stayed till the disposal of the main criminal revision petition.