Case: Smt. Rumi Dhar Vs. State of West Bengal &amp; Another

3. Appellant and her husband (A-4) along with various other persons including the officers of the Oriental Bank of Commerce Khidirpur Branch, Calcutta (hereinafter called `the Bank) were prosecuted for alleged commission of offences under Sections 120-B/ 420/467/468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code. The officers of the Bank had also been prosecuted under Sections 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention and Corruption Act, 1988.4. A charge sheet was filed against the appellant and seven others. She was inter alia charged for taking the benefit of overdrafts between the period 8th February, 1993 to 5th March, 1993 without furnishing any security.5. For the purpose of realisation of the said amount, indisputably the Bank filed an application for recovery thereof before the Debt Recovery Tribunal. It is not in dispute that before the said Tribunal, appellant and the Bank had entered into a settlement pursuant whereto or in furtherance a sum of Rs.25.51 lacs was paid.6. It is also not in dispute that for the said purpose, the C.B.I. had returned the title deeds in respect of the property which were kept as security for obtaining the loan from the bank.7. On or about 22.02.2006 the Appellant filed an application under section 239 of the Code for discharge, inter alia,That having regard to the settlement arrived at between her and the Bank no case for proceeding against her has been out.ii) That she having already paid Rs. 25.51 Lacs and the CBI having returned the title deeds which had been kept as security for the loan from the said bank, the criminal proceeding should be dropped relying on or on the basis of the said settlement.iii) That the dispute between the parties were purely civil in nature and that she had not fabricated any document or cheated the bank in anyway what so ever, charges could not have been framed against her.In response to the said application the CBI had contended that mere payment of loan to the bank could not exonerate the accused from a criminal proceeding.9. The learned Judge, Special Court Alipore in Special Case No. 3 of 1993 vide order dated 12.12.2006 dismissed the application of the appellant noting that mere repayment could not exonerate the accused from the prima facie charge in a criminal case.10. On or about 06.03.2007 the appellant filed a revision application under section 401 and 402 of the CrPC before the High Court of Calcutta which was registered as CRR No. 910 ofthe High Court, it was argued that further continuation of the criminal proceeding, despite repayment of the amount of loan by the appellant, would amount to an abuse of the process of Court and the same should, therefore, be quashed.11. In the said revision application the CBI contended that the criminal case against the appellant was started not only for obtaining loan but also on the ground of criminal conspiracy with the bank officials. It was accordingly contended that the court below had rightly rejected the application and the impugned order does not warrant any interference.12. On or about 17.07.2007 the learned Single Judge of the High Court dismissed the revision application. The court after discussing the arguments of both the partieshave taken into consideration the submissions of the ld. Advocates for both the sides. It is the case of the prosecution that the loan in question was sanctioned in favour of the petitioner by way of forming a criminal conspiracy, which was allegedly engineered by the bank officials. It is further been alleged that this accused/petitioner also took part in the said conspiracy. Now it is the admitted position that after investigation charge sheet has also been filed against the petitioner and the matter is now fixed for framing of charge. Ld. Trial Judge in his impugned order discussed the entire matter and thereafter he was of the opinion that merely because of the fact that the amount in question has already been paid in favour of the bank, that cannot exonerate the accused/petitioner, so far as the charge of conspiracy is concerned.The learned judge distinguished the case of CBI, New Delhi v. Duncans Agro Industries Limited Calcutta, (1996) 5 SCC 591 ) relied on by the appellant noting that the said case involved quashing of a criminal case which was still under investigation. The judge noted that the in the case before him the application for quashing the criminal proceedings was filed at a stage when the thorough investigation of the case had already been completed and a charge sheet had been filed. The court concluded that the trial judge was justified in rejecting the petition filed under Section 239 of the Code the appellant.

Court's reasoning:
17. Appellant is said to have taken part in conspiracy in defrauding the bank. Serious charges of falsification of accounts and forgery of records have also been alleged. Although no charge against the appellant under the Prevention of Corruption Act has been framed, indisputably, the officers of the bank are facing the said charges.18. It is now a well settled principle of law that in a given case, a civil proceeding and a criminal proceeding can proceed simultaneously. Bank is entitled to recover the amount of loan given to the debtor. If in connection with obtaining the said loan, criminal offences have been committed by the persons accused thereof including the officers of the bank, criminal proceedings would also indisputably be maintainable. When a settlement is arrived at by and between the creditor and the debtor, the offence committed as such does not come to an end. The judgment of a tribunal in a civil proceeding and that too when it is rendered on the basis of settlement entered into by and between the parties, would not be of much relevance in a criminal proceeding having regard to the provisions contained in Section 43 of the Indian Evidence Act.19. The judgment in the civil proceedings will be admissibile in evidence only for a limited purpose. It is not a case where the parties have entered into a compromise in relation to the criminal charges. In fact, the offence alleged against the accused being an offence against the society and the allegations contained in the first information report having been investigated by the Central Bureau of Investigation, the bank could not have entered into any settlement at all. The CBI has not filed any application for withdrawal of the case. Not only a charge sheet has been filed, charges have also been framed. At the stage of framing charge, the appellant filed an application for discharge. One of the main accused is the husband of the appellant. The complicity of the accused persons was, thus, required to be taken into consideration for the purpose of determining the application for discharge upon taking a realistic view of the matter. While considering an application for discharge filed in terms of Section 239 of the Code, it was for the learned Judge to go into the details of the allegations made against each of the accused persons so as to form an opinion as to whether any case at all has been made out or not as a strong suspicion in regard thereto shall subserve the requirements of law.It has not been argued before us that the learned Judge, in arriving at the said opinion, committed any error of law or the same otherwise suffers from any illegality so as to enable the High Court to interfere with the same matter. A prima facie case has been found out against the appellant. There is no error apparent on the face of the record warranting interference therewith.The jurisdiction of the Court under Article 142 of the Constitution of India is not in dispute. Exercise of such power would, however, depend on the facts and circumstance of each case. The High Court, in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal procedure, and this Court, in terms of Article 142 of the Constitution of India, would not direct quashing of a case involving crime against the society particularly when both the learned Special Judge as also the High Court have found that a prima facie case has been made out against the appellant herein for framing charge.