1 APPLN 5476.10.sxw JPP IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE SIDE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 5476 OF 2010 Smt. Sunita Kiran Shah. ... Applicant. V/s. The Superintendent of Police & Anr. ... Respondents. WITH CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 5477 OF 2010 WITH CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 5478 OF 2010 Smt. Kirti Sanjanwala & Anr. ... Applicants. V/s. The Superintendent of Police & Anr. ... Respondents. WITH CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 5479 OF 2010 Anil Vishnu Chinchalkar & Anr. ... Applicants. V/s. The Superintendent of Police & Anr. ... Respondents. WITH CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 5480 OF 2010 Bhupendra Mansukhlal Shah & Anr. ... Applicants. V/s. The Superintendent of Police & Anr. ... Respondents. WITH CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 5481 OF 2010 Noshir Maneckshaw Mistry. ... Applicant. V/s. The Superintendent of Police & Anr. ... Respondents. 2 APPLN 5476.10.sxw Mr. N.K. Thakhore i/b. Mr. Prakash Naik for the Applicants. Mr. Rajesh More, APP for the State. Mr. Sandeep K. Shinde for Respondent No.1. Mr. V.K. Naik for Respondent No.3. CORAM : K.U. CHANDIWAL, J. DATED : 16th AUGUST 2011. P.C. :- Heard. These six Applicants seek quashing of orders in Special Case No.77 of 1997 and also for discharge. 3. The Applications are in terms of Sections 482 of Cr.P.C. It is not in controversy that the Applicants had availed several financial facilities from Central Bank of India, Charchgate Branch. It is also not in controversy, that the repayment was irregular. There were several meetings and sittings with the bank officials in respect of regularizing the accounts. 4. The Bank, on an indepth enquiry found that there were several acts of commission and omission by the Petitioners while availing financial facilities, such as the stocks were not proper, inflated figures of the stock were given, security did not match the withdrawal. The Petitioners had dual accounts with other Bank which were inhibited under the scheme and even under the Bank Rules. No disclosure of such dual account was made though it was obligatory on the part of the Petitioner. 3 APPLN 5476.10.sxw 5. The learned Counsel for the Applicants submits that substantial amounts has been paid. The Receiver was appointed. The properties are sold. Consequently, offence under Section 420 of the I.P.C. r/w. 21(b) thereof could not be maintainable. 5. Several extracts in fact out of context were read by the learned Counsel for the Applicants. However, reading the complaint as a whole, it is explicit and peremptorily projects that there were blatant illegalities committed by the Applicants in operating with the Bank. All sort of magnificent efforts were made to inflate the figures of the stocks for which special auditors are appointed by the Bank for discovering such illegalities. Auditor was not even co-operated by the Petitioner at the proper time. It was so informed by the Auditors. 6. The learned Sessions Judge evaluated all these aspects while rejecting the discharge application made to him by the order dated 10th November 2010. 7. Basically, scope under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. has to be accelerated only (1) to give effect to any order under this Code, (2) to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or (3) to secure the ends of justice. 8. The settled legal position, is indicated in the matter of State of Harayana and Ors. V/s. Ch. Bhajan Lal & Ors. 4 APPLN 5476.10.sxw Reported in AIR (1992) SC 604, wherein seven parameters are given. Those parameters are as under :- (a) where the allegations made in the First Information Report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused; (b) where the allegations in the First Information Report and other materials, if any, accompanying the F.I.R.do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code; (c) where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or 'complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose 265 the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused; (d) where the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer 5 APPLN 5476.10.sxw without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code; (e) where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused; (f) where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party; (g) where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge.” 6 APPLN 5476.10.sxw 9. Learned Counsel Mr. Naik has invited my attention to the Judgment of Apex Court reported in 2008 All MR (Cri.) 870 (S.C.) (Didigam Bikshapathi & Anr. V/s. State of A.P.). The Apex Court has observed in paragraph 10 as under :- “10. As noted above, the powers possessed by the High Court under Section 482 of the Code are very wide and the very plenitude of the power requires great caution in its exercise. Court must be careful to see that its decision in exercise of this power is based on sound principles. The inherent power should not be exercised to stifle a legitimate prosecution. The High Court being the highest Court of a State should normally refrain from giving a prima facie decision in a case where the entire facts are incomplete and hazy, more so when the evidence has not been collected and produced before the Court and the issues involved, whether factual or legal, are of magnitude and cannot be seen in their true perspective without sufficient material. Of course, no hard and fast rule can be laid down in regard to cases in which the High Court will exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction of quashing the proceeding at any stage.” 10. These observations are important in the facts of the case as the latent intention of the Applicants is to stifle and fracture the legitimate prosecution initiated by CBI. 11. The learned Senior Counsel submits that case of the Applicants will be within the brackets of clauses 1 and 7 of 7 APPLN 5476.10.sxw Bhajanlal’s case. With respect, I defer, there is no personal vendetta actuated and accelerated by any bank official or any officer of the C.B.I. against the present Applicants. 12. This Court is not sitting in appellate jurisdiction and to scan the orders passed by the learned Special Judge while rejecting the discharge application. The scope of Section 482 of Cr.P.C. as indicated hereinabove being quite clear at this primary stage of this matter. I find that the prosecution against the Petitioners cannot be said to be an abuse of process or cannot be said to be in excess of powers vested in C.B.I. The learned Special Judge has framed the charge. I have gone through the same. The parameters in terms of Section 415 of I.P.C. are primarily indicated while one reads the text of investigation papers. 13. In the result, all the Applications lacks merit. 14. Dismissed. Rule discharged. Observations are to be restricted to the present Applications only. (K.U. CHANDIWAL,J.)