1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.2070 OF 2009 Shri Thakurji Ramanlal Chaturvedi : Applicant (Orig.Accused No.11) V/s. C.B.I. Anti Corruption Branch, Mumbai & Ors. : Respondents .... Ms Sandhya Goswami i/b. Mr.Amit Sheth for the applicant. Mrs.P.H. Kantharia with Mr.M.S.Bhardwaj and Mr.Y.M. Nakhwa for respondent no.1. Mr.S.A.Shaikh, Addl. Public Prosecutor for respondent no.2. Mr.Rabaindra Hazari for respondent no.3. .... CORAM : B.R. GAVAI, J. DATE : MARCH 18, 2010. P.C.: Rule, returnable forthwith. The learned counsel for the respective respondents waive service. Heard by consent. 2. By way of the present application, the applicant prays for 2 quashing and setting aside the F.I.R. being RC 33(A)/93 and Criminal Case No.45/2001 filed by the C.B.I. against the applicant pending in the Court of the learned Special Judge, C.B.I., Mumbai. 3. The allegation of the prosecution is that the accused no.1, 3 and 9 entered into a criminal conspiracy with accused nos.11 and 20 and others for the purpose of cheating Central Bank of India by way of opening of Letters of Credit. The applicant was a Director of M/s.Sirdar Sales Pvt. Ltd. It is the allegation of the prosecution that the applicant issued accommodation bills in the name of M/s.Chitij Trading (P) Ltd. (accused no.8) which was not backed by genuine business transaction. In this factual background, a crime was registered for the offences punishable under sections 120-B, 420, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code. 4. One of the Directors, viz., Narayan Chaturvedi had approached this Court by way of Criminal Application no.5264 of 2004. Since it was brought to the notice of the Court that the matter was amicably settled between the various borrowers and Central Bank of India, a notice was issued in the said matter to Central Bank of India. Central Bank of India had filed an affidavit in the said proceedings that there was no outstanding against the applicant therein and that the Bank had issued no Outstanding 3 Certificate in favour of M/s.Sunain Trading Pvt. Ltd., M/s.Chitiz Trading Pvt. Ltd., and M/s.Vidalni Engineering Ltd. The learned single Judge of this Court, therefore, vide judgement and order dated 22.12.2006 allowed the said petition and quashed and set aside the proceedings and the F.I.R. insofar as the applicant herein was concerned. 5. Another accused, viz., Dinesh Vithal Chaturvedi had also filed Criminal Application No.543 of 2007 and the said application was allowed by order dated 6.7.2007 to the extent of the applicant therein. It is pertinent to note that the judgement and order passed by this Court in Criminal Application No.5264 of 2004 was challenged before the apex Court and the apex Court was pleased to dismiss the SLP. It is further pertinent to be noted that the judgement and order in Criminal Application No.543 of 2007 was also challenged before the apex Court and the apex Court vide order dated 3.3.2008 dismissed the SLP. 6. Ms Sandhya Goswami, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant, submits that since the proceedings insofar as two other Directors who are similarly situated have already been quashed and set aside by this Court, on ground of parity, the proceedings against the present applicant are also entitled to be quashed. The learned counsel relies on the judgement of the apex Court in Central Bureau of 4 Investigation v. A. Ravishankar Prasad [(2009) 6 SCC 351] in support of the case of the applicant. To counter the submission on behalf of the respondent no.1-C.B.I., the learned counsel submits that the judgement of the apex Court in A. Ravishankar Prasad’s case cannot be uniformly be made applicable to all the cases. The learned counsel submits that the question as to whether the proceedings are required to be quashed or not would depend upon the facts of each case. 7. Mrs.Kantharia, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent no.1, on the contrary, vehemently opposes the application. It is submitted that the apex Court in A. Ravishankar Prasad’s case (supra) has considered the entire law, including the judgement of the apex Court in Central Bureau of Investigation v. Duncans Agro Industries Ltd. [(1996) 5 SCC 591] and after considering the legal position has come to a finding that merely because a borrower has settled his dues with the Bank cannot be a ground for quashing and setting aside the criminal proceedings. It is submitted that in the present case, the charge under sections 420, 468 and 471 is along with section 120-B. It is submitted that various Directors of the company in connivance with Offices of Central Bank of India had hatched a conspiracy to cheat Central Bank of India. It is, therefore, submitted that the facts in the present case are more nearer to the facts in A. Ravishankar Prasad’s case and, therefore, the 5 present application is liable to be dismissed. 8. Perusal of the entire charge-sheet would reveal that the main allegations in the said charge-sheet are against the accused Dinesh Vithal Chaturvedi. The allegation is that officers of Central Bank of India who have been made accused had hatched a criminal conspiracy with accused Dinesh Chaturvedi who had floated two companies, viz., M/s.Sunain Trding Company and M/s.Chitij Trading (P) Ltd. and various Current Accounts were opened in Central Bank of India for opening Letter of Credit for huge amounts. It is alleged that this was done without offering any collateral securities. The allegation as against the present applicant as could be gathered from the charge-sheet is as follows:- “Shri Thaklurji Chaturvedi (A-17) of M/s.Sirdar Sales Private Limited issued accommodation bills in the name of Chitij Trading Private Limited (A-8), which were not backed by the genuine business transactions.” It can thus be seen that the allegation against the present applicant is only to the effect that he had issued accommodation bills in the name of M/s.Chitij Trading (Private) Limited which were not backed by genuine 6 business transactions. The application of the main accused Dinesh Chaturvedi against whom the allegations were made of hatching a conspiracy with officers of the Bank had already been allowed by this Court vide judgement and order dated 6.7.2007 and a S.L.P. against the said judgement and order has also been dismissed by the apex Court on 3.3.2008. The application of another accused, viz., Narayan Chaturvedi against whom more serious allegations than the present applicant has been made has also been allowed and the S.L.P. challenging the said judgement has also been dismissed. In this factual background, I am of considered view that when the co-accused against whom more serious allegations have been made have been discharged, denial of the same relief to the present applicant would amount to blatant discrimination. Insofar as the reliance placed by both the parties on the judgement of the apex Court in A. Ravishankar Prasad’s case (supra) is concerned, the apex Court after considering various judgements on the point has observed thus:- “39. Careful analysis of all these judgements clearly reveals that the exercise of inherent powers would entirely depend on the facts and circumstances of each case. The object of incorporating inherent powers in the Code is to prevent abuse of the process of the court or to 7 secure ends of justice.” It is to be noted that in the said case after 92 witnesses were examined by the prosecution, the High Court in exercise of powers under section 482 had quashed charges against the respondent nos.1 & 2 therein. The Supreme Court in the said case held that quashing of proceedings at that stage was clearly an abuse of the process of the Court. It can thus clearly be seen that in the light of facts in A. Ravishankar Prasad’s case where the trial had proceeded at a substantially advanced stage and 92 witnesses were already examined, the apex Court found that quashing of the proceedings at that stage amounted to an abuse of the process of law. In this background, the judgement and order of the High Court was set aside by the apex Court. 9. However, in paragraph 39 itself, the apex Court has held that as to when powers under section 482 are to be invoked would depend upon the facts of each case. As already observed hereinabove, in the present case, the accused Dinesh against whom allegations of conspiracy along with the officers of the Bank had been made has already been discharged and S.L.P. against the said order has been dismissed. Another accused, viz., Narayan against whom more serious allegations have been made has already been discharged and S.L.P. challenging the said order has been 8 dismissed. In this factual background, if the same relief is denied to the present applicant against whom there are much lesser allegations as compared to those two accused, in my considered view, it will amount to nothing but travesty of justice. 10. In that view of the matter, rule is made absolute in terms of prayer clause (b). B. R. GAVAI, J.