1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CRIMINAL JURISDICTION APPLICATION NO. 2049 OF 2009 Mr. Jamboo Bhandari & Anr. ... Applicants. V/s. State of Maharashtra & Others. ... Respondents. Mr. Vijay Pradhan i/b. R. Satyanarayan for the Applicants. Mr. A.S. Gadkari with S.R. Shinde, APP for the State. CORAM : S.C. DHARMADHIKARI,J. DATED : 04th JANUARY 2010. P.C. :- The Applicants are seeking quashing of the proceedings which are pending on the file of the learned Special Judge. 2. Two contentions have been raised by Mr. Pradhan, learned Senior Counsel appearing in support of this Application. He urges that Applicant No.1 is the Managing Director and Applicant No.2 is the Joint Managing Director of Alpine Industries Limited. This Company approached the State Bank of India, Overseas Branch, Mumbai for financial Assistance to establish their new project at Neemuch in Madhya Pradesh. 3. There were proper appraisal reports and ultimately the proposal was sanctioned by the Executive Committee of the Central Board of the State Bank of India. Mr. Pradhan submits that the charge-sheet itself narrates that there is no criminality, in respect of the sanction and disbursal of this proposal, on the part of any of the Accused. Mr. Pradhan submitted that when there was a default 2 committed in repayment of the sum, proceedings were lodged for recovery. There were also proceedings by way of a complaint and that is how the Central Bureau of Investigation has filed the charge- sheet. Mr. Pradhan submits that a perusal of the entire charge-sheet would reveal that once there is no element of criminality and that the proposal was forwarded and accepted as a part of the banking business and activity, then, a case for quashing the said proceedings has been made out. 4. Alternatively and in any event, during the course of the dealings, attachment of the property at Neemuch resulted. Pursuant to the bank exercising its power under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short SARFAESI Act) the unit was sold and from the sale proceeds, the Bank appropriated a sum of Rs.18.90 Crores. This sum is accepted in full and final settlement of all claims against the Directors, Company and Guarantors. Later on, nothing survives in the light of this full and final settlement between parties. This is an additional reason for which the continuation of the proceedings would be an abuse of the process of the Court. That would also result in grave miscarriage of justice. 5. The learned Advocate appearing for C.B.I. on the other hand urges that in the affidavit filed in reply to this application, the C.B.I. has pointed out as to how this prosecution came to be launched. He submits that the allegation that Officers of the Bank have been let off and only the Company and its Directors so also Guarantors are singled out for criminal prosecution has no basis at all. The Officers have been let off because no case has been made out as far as the offence punishable under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. As far as the company is concerned, there are distinct offences alleged 3 including those punishable under Section 420 r/w. 120B of I.P.C. Therefore, there is no substance in this allegation and more particularly, when the charge-sheet must be perused and read as a whole. Further, relying upon the two decisions of the Supreme Court in the case of Central Bureau of Investigation, V.A. Ravishankar Prasad & Ors. (2009(6) SC 589) and Smt. Rumi Dhar V/s. State of West Bengal & Anr. (2009(3) SC 261), it is urged that settlement of dues before a Civil Court/Forum is no ground for quashing of criminal proceedings. For all these reasons, he submits that the application be dismissed. 6. With the able assistance of the learned Advocate appearing for both sides, I have perused the application so also the annexures thereto. It is well settled that mere compromise and settlement of the dues in civil proceedings is no ground to quash criminal prosecution more so, when the compromise terms do not decide the controversy and are taken on record so as to enable the Court to close the Civil proceedings. Therefore, there is substance in the contention of the learned Advocate appearing for the C.B.I. that the criminal prosecution in this case cannot be quashed on the ground of settlement allegedly entered into by parties. 7. Equally, the complaint that only the Petitioners and the Company has been singled out for the prosecution has no substance. The criminal prosecution was launched for the offence punishable under the Prevention of Corruption Act and I.P.C., it is during the course of the proceedings that the C.B.I. realised that it is unable to substantiate the charge of corruption by the public servants. Therefore, it decided to do away with that allegation. However, if the charge-sheet is perused as a whole, it is apparent that the allegations are of criminal conspiracy resulting in a loss of Rs. 154.29 4 crores. It has been set out as to how the funds which are released to set up a factory at Neemuch in Madhya Pradesh have been allegedly adverted. The role of the Applicants therein has been specifically mentioned. The entire charge-sheet has spelt out the circumstances in which the proposal has been forwarded and its acceptance. Having perused the same, I am of the opinion that it is not possible to agree with Mr. Pradhan that the same does not disclose commission of offence punishable under Section 120-B of I.P.C. r/w. Section 420 thereof. 8. Having reached this conclusion and finding that there is no substance in any of the submissions, there is no alternative but to reject this Criminal Application. It is accordingly dismissed. (S.C. DHARMADHIKARI,J.)