Judgment : KALIDAS MUKHERJEE, J.: 1. This is an application under Section 397 read with Sections 401 & 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure assailing the impugned order dated 12.3.2010 passed by learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 12th Court in G.R. Case No. 2670 of 2003 (R.C. No. 24 of 2002) praying for quashing the proceedings under Section 420/120B Indian Penal Code. 2. The F.I.R. was lodged alleging that Adhip Dutta, Asit Kumar Chowdhury and Amal Ghosh were posted and functioning as Finance Manager, Accountant and Officer Manager of Jute Corporation of India, Kolkata and also as Secretary, member and employee of the Board of Trustees of Jute Corporation of India, Provident Fund respectively. Prosenjit Daw, the then Deputy Manager, (Merchant Banking) UTI Bank Ltd. 7/1, Lord Sinha Road, Kolkata, and M/S. Home Trade Ltd., ‘Raj Kutir’, 2B, Pretoria Street, Kolkata having its registered office at 124A, Sohrab Half, 21, Sasoon Road, Pune, Maharashtra, during the year 2002 entered into a criminal conspiracy among themselves with the intention to cheat Jute Corporation of India Contributory Provident Fund Trust (hereinafter referred to as JCICPF Trust) and in pursuance of the criminal conspiracy, a sum of Rs.82,51,130/- was misappropriated by them showing purchase of 12% IDBI Bonds 2007. But, the said Bonds were never purchased and the entire amount was credited to the account of the said M/S. Home Trade Ltd. by the accused persons thereby causing loss to the ‘JCICPF Trust’ and consequential gain to themselves. It has been stated in the F.I.R. that in accordance with the guideline as laid down in Government of India Notification No. G 20015/29355 dated 7.7.1998 duly published in the gazette on 11.7.1998 and conveyed to the Secretary, JCICPF Trust, Kolkata by the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner, West Bengal, any surplus amount can be invested in different securities by the Board of Trustees. The investment committee of the Board of Trustees of JCIPF Trust decided in the meeting dated 22.4.2002 to invest Rs.83,00,000/- in 12% I.D.B.I. Bonds 2007 through U.T.I. Bank. It has also been alleged that in pursuance of the said criminal conspiracy. Prosenjit Daw, Deputy Manager, UTI Bank vide its letter dated 22.4.2002 quoted Rs.82,51,130/-including accrued interest amounting to Rs.6,38,630/- for the purchase of 12% I.D.B.I. Bonds 2007 for a total face value of Rs.75,00,000/-. The settlement date was 23.4.2002 and the Bonds were to be delivered physically. It has also been alleged that in pursuance of the said criminal conspiracy. Prosenjit Daw, Deputy Manager, UTI Bank vide its letter dated 22.4.2002 quoted Rs.82,51,130/-including accrued interest amounting to Rs.6,38,630/- for the purchase of 12% I.D.B.I. Bonds 2007 for a total face value of Rs.75,00,000/-. The settlement date was 23.4.2002 and the Bonds were to be delivered physically. Subsequently, a cheque bearing No. 155599 dated 22.4.2002 for Rs.82,51,130/- was written by Shri Amal Ghosh, office Manager and jointly signed by Sri A. Dutta and Ashit Kumar Chowdhury was issued from the account of JCICPF Trust in favour of U.T.I. Bank Ltd. bearing account No. 005010200016302. The receipt of the said cheque for purchase of 12% I.D.B.I. Bonds 2007 was acknowledged by Prosenjit Daw of UTI Bank vide letter dated 22.4.2002. The said account number maintained with the UTI Bank Ltd., Kolkata – 700 007 was found to be in the name of M/S. Home Trade Ltd. with their Pune address and Shri Sanjay Agarwal was the Director and Chairman of the said Company. The amount of the said cheque was duly credited in the account of Home Trade Ltd. maintained with the UTI Bank and subsequently withdrawn also, but, IDBI Bond 2007 was not purchased by M/S. Home Trade Ltd. or delivered by the UTI Bank to JCICPF Trust for which the said cheque was issued causing thereby loss of Rs.82,51,130/- to the said JCICPF Trust, Kolkata. 3. The case of the petitioner, in short, is that he is an Advocate and as professional Company Secretary was engaged by M/S. Home Trade Limited, International Infotech Park, Tower No. 3, 5th floor, Vashi, Navi, Mumbai. C.B.I./A.C.B., Kolkata registered Case No. RC-24/2002-Kolkata on 30.7.2002 under Sections 420/120B and 409 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1) (c) & (d) Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 based on some source information against Prosenjit Daw and four others. In the said F.I.R. the petitioner herein was not named. After completion of the investigation charge sheet was submitted under Section 420/120B Indian Penal Code against six accused persons bearing G.R. Case No. 2670 of 2003. In the said charge sheet the accused/petitioner was arraigned as accused No. 5 and he was not arrested during investigation. In the said F.I.R. the petitioner herein was not named. After completion of the investigation charge sheet was submitted under Section 420/120B Indian Penal Code against six accused persons bearing G.R. Case No. 2670 of 2003. In the said charge sheet the accused/petitioner was arraigned as accused No. 5 and he was not arrested during investigation. On 12.3.2010 the learned Trial Court proceeded to frame the charge in a piece-meal manner against the accused No. 1 only indicating that the other accused persons were the co-conspirators. 4. Mr. Sengupta appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the petitioner is accused No. 5 in the charge sheet and from the materials on record it would appear that the petitioner issued one cheque amounting to Rs.10,00,000/- in favour of UTI, Bank. It is submitted that the entire amount has been paid back by the UTI Bank to the JCICPF Trust and an agreement (Annexure ‘C’ to the application) to that effect was entered into by and between the parties. Mr. Sengupta has drawn my attention to clause 7, 8 and 9 where it was mentioned that both parties agreed to withdraw the proceedings pending in the court of law and inform CBI and such other agencies about the receipt of the amount in full and final settlement and satisfaction of the claim made by JCICPF Trust. It is contended that as per clause 9 JCICPF Trust shall not proceed against the UTI Bank Ltd. under any circumstance. It is contended that the charge was framed on 12.3.2010 against accused No. 1 in a piece-meal manner and the present petitioner has been prejudiced thereby, in as much as, there is allegation under Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code implicating the present petitioner. 5. Mr. Sengupta contends that under the circumstances no dispute, far less any criminal cause is existing. It is contended that the dispute has been settled after the money has been paid back to JCICPF Trust. It is submitted that under such circumstances, the Court should not stand in the way of the compounding such differences and disputes. 6. Mr. Sengupta contends that mere issuance of cheque per se cannot be said to be the evidence of conspiracy on the part of the petitioner herein. Mr. Sengupta has referred to and cited the decisions reported in 1973 CR.L.J. 47 [Hiralal Jain Vs. 6. Mr. Sengupta contends that mere issuance of cheque per se cannot be said to be the evidence of conspiracy on the part of the petitioner herein. Mr. Sengupta has referred to and cited the decisions reported in 1973 CR.L.J. 47 [Hiralal Jain Vs. Delhi Administration]; 1996(5) Supreme 462 [Central Bureau of Investigation, SPE, SIU, New Delhi Vs. Duncans Agro Industries Ltd., Calcutta]; 2009(1) C.Cr.L.R. (SC) 19 [Nikhil Merchant Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation & Anr.]; 1965(1) Cr.L.J. 26 [Rameshwar Daga Vs. State of West Bengal]. 7. Mr. De appearing on behalf of the O.P. (CBI) contends that the petitioner herein was working in Home Trade Ltd. having knowledge about day to day business of the company and he was responsible for the acts done on behalf of the company. Mr. De contends that at this stage it is to be seen whether there is prima facie case for the framing of charge. Mr. De contends that the agreement arrived at between the parties themselves cannot be given importance, in as much as, the complaint has been filed by the CBI and the complainant has not agreed to the terms of compromise. Mr. De contends that it was public money amounting to Rs.82,51,130/-and the Government has been cheated. It is contended that since the public money was involved in the transaction, CBI made the complaint and the question whether the petitioner acted in good faith is a question of fact which is to be decided after recording the evidence. 8. As regards the framing of charge, Mr. De contends that only one accused remained present and the learned Magistrate framed charge against him and issued warrant of arrest against rest of the accused persons. Mr. De has referred to the provisions contained in Section 215 and 216 of the Cr.P.C. Mr. De contends that there is no ground to exercise jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Mr. De contends that no civil suit is pending between the parties and only to avoid the criminal proceeding, the agreement was entered into between the UTI Bank and the JCICPF Trust. 9. Mr. De has referred to and cited the decisions reported in 2007(2) SCC (Cri) 514 paras 10 & 19 [Soma Chakravarty Vs. State through CBI]; (2009) 3 SCC (Cri) 996 paras 39 & 41 [Indu Jain Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and others]. 10. 9. Mr. De has referred to and cited the decisions reported in 2007(2) SCC (Cri) 514 paras 10 & 19 [Soma Chakravarty Vs. State through CBI]; (2009) 3 SCC (Cri) 996 paras 39 & 41 [Indu Jain Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and others]. 10. It appears that JCICPF Trust decided to invest the excess fund with the UTI Bank for purchase of 12% IDBI Bonds and in furtherance thereof the JCICPF Trust issued cheque for Rs.82,51,130/- as alleged and the UTI Bank received the same. It further appears from the papers on record that there was stipulation that the bonds will be delivered to the JCICPF Trust within one month and there will be no brokerage charge or intervention of third party. It is the further case of the prosecution that the UTI Bank after receipt of the cheque credited the same with the account standing in the name of M/S. Home Trade Ltd. and it received the said amount. But the bonds were not delivered to the JCICPF Trust in violation of the stipulation. 11. In the case of Nikhil Merchant Vs. CBI and another (Supra) it has been held that when the civil suit between the parties was compromised, the charge sheet filed by the CBI for certain offences of which some were not compoundable, it would be futile to continue the main proceeding since the civil dispute has been compromised. The Apex Court in paras 31 of the said judgment observed as follows:- “31. On an overall view of the facts of the facts as indicated hereinabove and keeping in mind the decision of this Court in B.S. Joshi case (Supra) 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.” 12. In the case of CBI Vs. Duncun Agro Industries Ltd., Kolkata (Supra) it has been held that it is necessary to consider whether on the face of allegations, a criminal offence is constituted or not. 13. Mr. In the case of CBI Vs. Duncun Agro Industries Ltd., Kolkata (Supra) it has been held that it is necessary to consider whether on the face of allegations, a criminal offence is constituted or not. 13. Mr. Sengupta submits that in this case the petitioner herein issued only one cheque amounting to Rs.10,00,000/- in favour of the UTI Bank. In this connection, the learned Counsel has referred to and cited the decision reported in 1965(1) Cr.L.J. 26 (Supra). It has been held in that case that where the only overt act was the issue of a cheque towards the payment of the price of shares, such an overt act by itself would not be sufficient material for inferring that there was participation in a criminal conspiracy. 14. In case of Hiralal Jain Vs. Delhi Administration (Supra) it has been held that in absence of prima facie evidence of conspiracy, order of commitment was wrong. 15. Mr. De has referred to and cited the decision in the case of Soma Chakravarty Vs. State through CBI (Supra) para 11 to 15 and 19. In para 15 of the aforesaid decision it has been observed by the Apex Court as follows:- “15. ………. There are serious allegations of misappropriation of a huge amount of money belonging to the Government, and it cannot be said at this stage that there is no material at all for framing the charge against her………..” 16. Mr. De has also referred to Indu Jain Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and others (Supra) wherein it has been held that at the stage of framing of charge the Court is not required to go into the details of the investigation, but to only arrive at a prima facie finding on the materials made available as to whether a charge could be sustained as recommended in the charge sheet. The holding of a mini trial at the time of framing of a charge has been deprecated. 17. In the case of Nikhil Merchant Vs. CBI and another there was civil suit between the parties which ended in compromise and having regard to the said compromise arrived at by and between the parties in the civil Court, the terms of settlement filed before the criminal Court was acted upon. 17. In the case of Nikhil Merchant Vs. CBI and another there was civil suit between the parties which ended in compromise and having regard to the said compromise arrived at by and between the parties in the civil Court, the terms of settlement filed before the criminal Court was acted upon. But, so far as, the instant case is concerned there is no material to show the filing of any civil suit between the parties. Such being the position, those decisions would not come in the aid of the contention of Mr. Sengupta in the different facts of the instant case. In the instant case, the terms of settlement were arrived at between the UTI and the JCICPF Trust. The complaint has been lodged by the CBI. The CBI did not accede to those terms of settlement. 18. Mr. De has submitted that public money was involved and, as such, the power under Section 482 should not be exercised in favour of the present petitioner. From the aforesaid decisions it is also clear that at the stage of framing of charge the veracity of the documents filed in support of the application should not be examined so as to hold a mini trial. It is only to be seen whether there are materials, prima facie, for the framing of charge. From the facts alleged it appears, prima facie, that the cheque received by UTI Bank was deposited with the different account in favour of M/S. Home Trade Ltd. and the IDBI Bonds were not delivered to JCICPF Trust. So far as the present petitioner is concerned, he has issued a cheque amounting to Rs.10,00,000/- in favour of UTI Bank. The good faith being a question of fact should be gone into at the time of trial. 19. Having regard to the decision reported in Soma Chakravarty Vs. State through CBI (Supra) wherein there was misappropriation of huge amount of Government money, I find that in the instant case also huge amount of public money is involved and, as such, it is not a fit case for quashing of the proceedings. 20. The Revisional Application, therefore, stands dismissed. 21. Let a copy of this order along with the LCR be sent to the learned Court below immediately. 22. Urgent Photostat certified copy, if applied for, be handed over to the parties as early as possible.