1 (APL 1766 of 2009 with 1767 of 2009) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.1767 OF 2009 Union of India and Anr. ...Applicants M/s. Krishna Filaments Ltd. and Ors. ...Respondents WITH CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.1766 OF 2009 Union of India and Anr. ..Applicant Vs. M/s.Krishna Vinyls Ltd. and Ors. …Respondents --- Mr.Shirish Gupte i/b. Mr. Surel Shah i/b. Little and oc. For Applicant and respondents in Crim Appln. 1767 of 2009 Mr.D.N. Salvi i/b. Mr.Mandar Goswami for CBI- Respondent No.1 Mr.Subodh Desai Respondent No.9 in Application No.1767 of 2009 and Respondent No.8 in Application No.1766 of 2009. Mr. Vikrim A. Goel for Respondent No.6 in Application no.1766 of 2009 Mr.S.S. Pednekar -APP for State. --- CORAM: B.R. GAVAI J. DATED: 21st July, 2011 P.C. 1. The Union of India through C.B.I. has approached 2 (APL 1766 of 2009 with 1767 of 2009) this Court by way of present applications, being aggrieved by the order passed by the Learned Sessions Judge, dated 9th January, 2009 in Revision Application Nos.637 of 2008 and 638 of 2008, thereby, discharging the accused-Respondents. 2. The facts in brief giving rise to the present applications are as under. The Applicants-CBI has registered an offence under sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 201 r/w. 120-B of the Indian Penal Code against the Respondents-Accused. It is alleged in the FIR that the Respondent No.1 had over invoiced export of Vinyls Flooring to different countries during June 1998 to July, 1999 and on the basis of the same obtained various export incentives to the tune of Rs.6.00 crores. After completion of investigation, the chargesheet came to be filed in the Court of Learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, 19th Court, Esplanade, Mumbai. The Respondents-Accused filed applications for discharge. The Learned Magistrate by order dated 26th March, 2008 allowed the applications for discharge. Being aggrieved thereby, the Applicant preferred the Revision Applications before the Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Greater Mumbai and the same were 3 (APL 1766 of 2009 with 1767 of 2009) rejected. Hence, the present criminal applications. 3. Shri Salvi, the learned Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the C.B.I. submits that the Learned Trial Court as well as the Learned Revisional Court have grossly erred in discharging the accused and in dismissing the revision applications. It is submitted that the Respondents-Accused are involved in huge financial scam and as such, the Learned Magistrate ought not to have discharged the Respondents-accused. 4. Shri Gupte, the Learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondents, on the contrary, submits that both the Courts have given sound and cogent reasons which requires no interference of this Court. It is submitted that extra-ordinary jurisdiction of this Court would permit an interference only when the finding are perverse and contradictory. It is also submitted that in any case, the view taken by the Courts below is in consonance with the various judgments of the Apex Court and this Court on this point, and as such, the applications deserve to be dismissed. 5. From perusal of the impugned order, it would reveal that according to the prosecution, the fraud was played on IDBI. It has been found that there was a loan transactions between the Accused no.1 and the said 4 (APL 1766 of 2009 with 1767 of 2009) bank. It has been found that there was full time settlement between the bank and the Accused No.1. It has further been found that the allegations in the chargesheet did not indicate that the accused persons had played any role in preparing the forged documents. In totality of the circumstances, the Learned Magistrate found that no case is made out for framing the charges. The said finding is confirmed by the Learned Revisional Court. 6. Shri Salvi, further submitted that in view of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Smt. Rumi Dhar vs. State of W.B. And Anr. decided in Criminal Appeal No.661 of 2009, the Learned Magistrate ought not to have discharged the accused. 7. This Court had an occasion to consider the similar issue in Criminal Application no.2070 of 2009 which was allowed by this Court by order dated 18th March, 2010. In the said case, a reliance was placed on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Central Investigation v. A.Ravishankar Prasad [(2009) 6 SCC 351)] by both the parties. Considering the said contention, wherein, it is observed as under: “39. Careful analysis of all these judgments clearly reveals that the exercise of inherent powers would entirely depend on the facts 5 (APL 1766 of 2009 with 1767 of 2009) 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 secure ends of justice.” The judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Smt. Rumi Dhar (supra) was considered by the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of A.Ravishankar Prasad (supra). However, perusal of the judgment in the case of Smt. Rumi Dhar (Supra), itself would reveal that in the said case there was compromise arrived at between the company and the bank and as such, the High Court had quashed and set aside the proceedings. The Apex Court had refused to interfere with the judgment of the High Court. No doubt, the reliance placed by the Learned Public Prosecutor on paragraph 23 to the effect that when the crime is against the society, this Court under section 482 of Cr.P.C. should not invoke the jurisdiction to quash the crime. 7. There would be a distinction while exercising the powers under section 482 when the crime is against the individual and when it is against a society at large. Normally, when the offence is against the society at large, the Court would not invoke its extraordinary 6 (APL 1766 of 2009 with 1767 of 2009) jurisdiction to quash the proceedings. However, if the offence is purely in personal in nature, having no effect of whatsoever nature against the society at large and the matter is kept pending, no purpose would be served by either parties. Perusal of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Madan Mohan Abbot vs. State of Punjab (2008) 4SCC 582, it would reveal that no purpose would be served by keeping the criminal proceedings pending except burdening the Criminal Courts which are already overburdened. When the matter is already settled between the bank and the Respondents-Accused, no purpose would be served in keeping the criminal proceedings pending. 8. In that view of the matter, it cannot be said that the jurisdiction which was exercised by the Learned Trial Court and the Revisional Court in allowing the applications for discharge and dismissing the revisions was neither personal in nature nor against the society at large. No case is made out for interference with the impugned orders. Both the Criminal Applications are rejected and are, accordingly, disposed of. Rule is discharged in both the Criminal Applications. (B.R.GAVAI J.)