THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY Criminal Petition No.5357 of 2009 Dated: 10th August, 2009 Between: Mrs. Ravi Siva Kumari …Petitioner/A6 and The State of A.P. through Inspector of Police, CBI, Visakhapatnam, rep. by its Spl. P.P., High Court of A.P., Hyderabad. …Respondent *** THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY Criminal Petition No.5357 of 2009 ORDER: The petitioner herein is A6 in Crime No.18(A)/2005 of CBI, Visakhapatnam registered for the offence under Section 120-B r/w.420 IPC and under Section 13(2) r/w.13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. 2. Modus operandi adopted by the accused in defrauding the State Bank of India, Patamata branch is opening the accounts as imposter with assumed names and approaching the bank for sanction of credit limits and after sanction of credit limits, transferring the amounts to the account of the firm which they established and closing the accounts after pocketing the money. It is also their modus operandi that creating the documents in respect of the property which they never held, obtaining encumbrance certificates and offering the properties as security for the availment of loans. In implementation of the said modus operandi, three firms came to be introduced and they are: 1) M/s.Wonders, 2) M/s.Grand Fashions and 3) M/s.Hi-Tech Electronics. So far as the instant application is concerned, it is suffice to refer the transactions relatable to M/s.Grand Fashions. One Lagadapati Mahesh Kumar @ Ponnam Suresh, who has been arrayed as A2, assumed the name of Ponnam Suresh as proprietor of M/s.Grand Fashions. The petitioner, who has been arrayed as A6, claims to have purchased M/s.Grand Fashions from A2 and submitted application for transfer of facility allowed to M/s.Grand Fashions and sought for release of OCC of Rs.30.00 Lakhs in the name of supplier. It appears the amount has been initially gone to the account of M/s.Century Cottex Inc., Hyderabad and from there amounts have been diverted to various accounts. 3. Heard Sri C.Padmanabha Reddy, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned Special Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent/State. 4. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the role of the petitioner, who has been arrayed as A6, has not been stated specifically in the charge-sheet and her name does not figure in the First Information Report. A further submission has been made that the alleged outstanding liability of borrowers have been settled and the borrowers paid Rs.1,05,00,000/- to the Bank and nothing survives for the Bank to proceed further against the petitioner. Reliance has been placed by the Learned Senior Counsel on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Nikhil Merchant v. CBI[1]1. 5. Learned Special Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent/State submits that the role of the petitioner/A6 has been specifically stated in the charge-sheet and therefore, the petitioner does not deserve for anticipatory bail. 6. Nikhil Merchant’s case (supra) refers the powers of the Supreme Court under Article 142 of the Constitution of India with regarding to permitting the parties to enter into compromise. Paras.30 and 31 of the cited judgment read as hereunder: “30. In the instant case, the disputes between the Company and the Bank have been set at rest on the basis of the compromise arrived at by them whereunder the dues of the Bank have been cleared and the Bank does not appear to have any further claim against the Company. What, however, remains is the fact that certain documents were alleged to have been created by the appellant herein in order to avail of credit facilities beyond the limit to which the Company was entitled. The dispute involved herein has overtones of a civil dispute with certain criminal facets. The question which is required to be answered in this case is whether the power which independently lies with this Court to quash the criminal proceedings pursuant to the compromise arrived at, should at all be exercised? 31. On an overall view of the facts as indicated hereinabove and keeping in mind the decision of this Court in B.S. Joshi case2 and the compromise arrived at between the Company and the Bank as also Clause 11 of the consent terms filed in the suit filed by the Bank, we are satisfied that this is a fit case where technicality should not be allowed to stand in the way in the quashing of the criminal proceedings, since, in our view, the continuance of the same after the compromise arrived at between the parties would be a futile exercise.” Coming to the facts of the case on hand, the accusation made against the petitioner is that she approached the Bank for release of certain OCC limits, obtained the drafts in the name of the company, which is not in existence and thereafter the amount has been diverted. So, the facts in the cited case and the case on hand are distinctive and therefore, the cited case is of no help to the petitioner/A6. 7. In view of the gravity of the offence and other circumstances of the case, I am not inclined to grant anticipatory to the petitioner/A6. 8. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is dismissed. ______________________ B.SESHASAYANA REDDY, J. Date:10th August, 2009. cs [1] (2008) 3 SCC (Cri) 858