JUDGMENT Ujjal Bhuyan, J. 1. This petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 seeks quashing of the proceedings in Special Case No. 4792/2003 pending in the Court of Special Judicial Magistrate, Kamrup at Guwahati. Petitioners have been named as accused in Special Case No. 4792/2003. The criminal case was set in motion on a complaint lodged by respondent No. 2 which was investigated by respondent No. 1. On completion of investigation, respondent No. 1 filed charge-sheet alleging commission of offence u/s. 120B/420 IPC by the petitioners. 2. The case of the prosecution according to the charge sheet submitted is that the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) registered a case on 6th May, 2002 bearing No. RC SIA 2002 E 002 under Section 120-B read with Sections 420, 467 and 471IPC and Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of P.C. Act, 1988 and substantive offences under Sections 420, 467, 469, 471IPC and Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the P.C. Act, 1988 against Sri Motilal Kothari, Sri Raichand Kothari, Smti. Kushum Kothari, Smti. Barji Devi Kothari, Smti. Sampat Devi Kothari, Sri Pramod Kumar Kothari, Sri D.S. Kothari and Sri Anil Kothari alongwith some unknown Bank officials of the State Bank of India, Guwahati. 3. The further case of the prosecution is that the aforesaid accused persons entered into a criminal conspiracy to cheat the State Bank of India (SBI) to the tune of Rs. 72.43 crores on the basis of forged and fabricated powers of attorney and thereby caused pecuniary loss to the SBI and corresponding gain to themselves. It is also alleged that the Kothari Group deliberately diverted the funds and also utilized the funds for purposes other than for which the loans were sanctioned resulting in enhancement in letters of credit and loss to the Bank; that the SBI had sanctioned/enhanced credit facilities to the Kothari Group in the year 1991 and the Kothari Group of Companies allegedly submitted forged powers of attorney of Sri Nauratanmal Kothari and Smt. Sayar Devi Kothari, which were executed in favour of Sri Kundanmal Kothari and Sri Motilal Kothari. 4. Further, Smt. Sayar Devi Kothari and Sri Nauratanmal Kothari denied execution of said powers of attorney and accordingly, the case was registered on 6th May 2002 on the basis of such letters of denial issued by them to the SBI. 4. Further, Smt. Sayar Devi Kothari and Sri Nauratanmal Kothari denied execution of said powers of attorney and accordingly, the case was registered on 6th May 2002 on the basis of such letters of denial issued by them to the SBI. But by letter dated 25th June 2002, Sri Nauratanmal Kothari and Smt. Sayar Devi Kothari confirmed that they had executed the powers of attorney and in support thereof they also executed affidavit dated 31st July 2002. As the said Smt. Sayar Devi Kothari and Sri Nauratanmal Kothari could not be examined during investigation and in view of their admission of execution of power of attorney, the alleged forgery in respect of their powers of attorney could not be established. 5. It is the further case of the prosecution that the Kothari Group of Companies defrauded the Bank to the tune of Rs. 33 crores; that the SBI, Guwahati have filed suits for recovery of the dues in the Debts Recovery Tribunal at Guwahati; that there is sufficient oral and documentary evidence on record to prove that the accused in criminal conspiracy with each other cheated the Bank gaining wrongfully to the extent of Rs. 72.43 crores to themselves and corresponding loss to the Bank and that the accused committed the offence punishable under Section 120-B read with Section 420 IPC. The charge-sheet concluded as under:- "The above facts and circumstances of the case disclosed the commission of offences punishable u/s.120-B r/w 420 IPC against S/Shri Motilal Kothari, Bimal Singh Kothari and Nirmal Kumar Kothari and for commission of substantive offences u/s. 420 IPC against M/s. Mahalchand Motilal Kothari Pvt. Ltd., M/s. D.S. Kothari Pvt. Ltd., M/s. Sampat Industrial and Construction Company Ltd. and M/s. Kothari Vegetable Products Ltd. through their MDs/representatives. It is, therefore, prayed that cognizance of the charge sheet may be taken and the accused may be summoned to face the trial by putting the law into motion." 6. After cognizance was taken, process was issued to the petitioners for appearance pursuant to which petitioners appeared. The case is fixed for consideration of charge but charge has not yet been framed. 7. Respondent No. 2 had filed original applications before the Debts Recovery Tribunal at Guwahati for recovery of the outstanding amount due from the petitioners. All the original applications were amicably settled by the petitioners with the respondent No. 2. The case is fixed for consideration of charge but charge has not yet been framed. 7. Respondent No. 2 had filed original applications before the Debts Recovery Tribunal at Guwahati for recovery of the outstanding amount due from the petitioners. All the original applications were amicably settled by the petitioners with the respondent No. 2. Pursuant to such statement, petitioners paid the compromise amount. Respondent No. 2 accordingly issued No Dues Certificates dated 02.03.2007 to the petitioners. 8. Petitioners filed application before the Criminal Court for discharge of the petitioners in view of payment of compromise amount by the petitioners to the satisfaction of respondent No. 2 which led to closure of all the original applications before the Debts Recovery Tribunal but no order was passed by the Court below. 9. Petitioners then moved this Court by filing WP(C) No. 269/2013. This Court by order dated 04.02.2013 disposed of the writ petition by directing the Special Judicial Magistrate, Kamrup at Guwahati to decide on the question of framing of charge or discharge of the petitioners expeditiously. 10. Following the aforesaid order passed by this Court, petitioners filed a detailed application before the Special Judicial Magistrate for their discharge. Special Judicial Magistrate passed order dated 24.08.2013 declining to accept the prayer of the petitioners for their discharge following compromise arrived at between the parties. 11. Not with standing the above, petitioners filed another application before the Special Judicial Magistrate u/s. 320 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr. P.C.) for compounding the offence. However, by order dated 29.10.2013 Special Judicial Magistrate took the view that before passing any order on framing of charge, it would be difficult to ascertain whether the case would come u/s. 320 Cr. P.C. or not. Accordingly, it was ordered that application filed by the petitioners would be considered only after order on charge is passed. 12. Aggrieved, petitioners have filed the present criminal petition. 13. This Court by order dated 28.05.2014 had issued notice and stayed further proceedings in Special Case No. 4792/2003. 14. Respondent No. 2 has appeared and has filed affidavit through one Shri Naba Kumar Borah, Assistant General Manager. In the affidavit it is stated that respondent No. 2 had filed nine original applications before the Debts Recovery Tribunal at Guwahati. The total outstanding amount in the nine accounts covered by the nine original applications stood at Rs. 66.83 crores. 14. Respondent No. 2 has appeared and has filed affidavit through one Shri Naba Kumar Borah, Assistant General Manager. In the affidavit it is stated that respondent No. 2 had filed nine original applications before the Debts Recovery Tribunal at Guwahati. The total outstanding amount in the nine accounts covered by the nine original applications stood at Rs. 66.83 crores. The said accounts were written off on 27.02.2003 and were parked in Advance Under Collection Amount (AUCA). Following meeting held between the petitioners and the Executive Committee of the Central Board of respondent No. 2 on 14.03.2006, the matter was amicably settled on compromise. Respondent No. 2 accepted the compromise offer of Rs. 30 crores by waiving notional interest and other charges. After the petitioners paid the entire compromise amount of Rs. 30 crores, respondent No. 2 filed closure petitions before the Debts Recovery Tribunal. Accordingly, the Debts Recovery Tribunal closed all the proceedings against the petitioners. 15. Respondent No. 1 in their affidavit stated that investigation conducted to verify the role of Bank officials did not yield any fruitful result as there were not enough materials to prosecute them. But respondent No. 2 had initiated disciplinary proceeding against several Bank officials which led to imposition of major penalties on them. It is stated that discharge from civil liability will not condone criminal culpability. Repayment of loan amount cannot absolve the accused from criminal prosecution. Order of the trial Court is correct and may not be interfered with. Since a prima-facie case is made out u/s. 120B/420 IPC by filing of charge-sheet, petitioners should face the trial. No case for quashing is made out. 16. Heard Mr. GN. Sahewalla, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners and Mr. P.N. Choudhury, learned Counsel appearing for CBI (respondent No. 1). Also heard Mr. M.K. Das, learned Counsel appearing for SBI (respondent No. 2). 17. Learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that since the liability of respondent No. 2 has been amicably settled between the parties on mutual agreement, there is no basis for holding criminal trial against the petitioners. He submits that the substantive allegation against the petitioners is under Section 420 IPC, which is a compoundable offence. In so far criminal conspiracy is concerned, respondent No. 1 has admitted in the affidavit that materials were not found to prosecute the Bank officials for criminal conspiracy. He submits that the substantive allegation against the petitioners is under Section 420 IPC, which is a compoundable offence. In so far criminal conspiracy is concerned, respondent No. 1 has admitted in the affidavit that materials were not found to prosecute the Bank officials for criminal conspiracy. If that be so, learned Counsel submits, allegation of criminal conspiracy to defraud the bank would not survive. He therefore submits that the trial sought to be initiated against the petitioners would be a futile exercise inasmuch as on the basis of the available materials, the trial will only end in the acquittal of the petitioners. In such circumstances, it would be in the interest of justice to quash the criminal proceedings by invoking the inherent power of the High Court u/s. 482 Cr. P.C. In support of his submissions, learned Counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of CBI vs. Narendra Lal Jain & Ors. reported in (2014) 5 SCC 364 . 18. On the other hand, Mr. P.N. Choudhury, learned Counsel for CBI submits that law is well settled that a given case may have a civil liability as well as a criminal angle. Merely because the civil liability has been compromised between the parties would be no ground to abort criminal proceedings. He submits that there has been an alarming increase in white collar crimes in the country in the recent past which has affected the economy of the country. No leniency should be shown in such cases. Power u/s. 482 Cr. P.C. is not to be invoked to shield the accused. He therefore seeks dismissal of the criminal petition. 19. Learned Counsel appearing for respondent No. 2 has referred to and placed reliance on the affidavit filed on behalf of the said respondent. 20. Submissions made have been considered. 21. As has already been noticed above, charge-sheet has been submitted against the petitioners u/s. 120B/420 IPC. It is on record that the claim of the respondent No. 2 relating to civil liability of the petitioners have been amicably settled between them following which the Debts Recovery Tribunal closed all the certificate proceedings initiated by the respondent No. 2 against the petitioners. SBI has issued No Dues Certificates to the petitioners. It is on record that the claim of the respondent No. 2 relating to civil liability of the petitioners have been amicably settled between them following which the Debts Recovery Tribunal closed all the certificate proceedings initiated by the respondent No. 2 against the petitioners. SBI has issued No Dues Certificates to the petitioners. In the present proceedings also, the Bank (respondent No. 2) has come forward and has stated before the Court that all outstanding claims of the Bank have been amicably settled between the parties and the compromise amount has been paid by the petitioners. Thus, it appears that Bank has no subsisting grievance against the petitioners. 22. While Section 420 IPC is compoundable, Section 120B IPC is not compoundable. However, it is Section 420 IPC which is the substantive Section. It is settled law that power under Section 482 Cr. P.C. can be invoked in appropriate cases to not only quash a criminal proceeding involving provisions covered by Section 320 Cr. P.C. but also for offences not compoundable u/s. 320Cr.P.C. 23. Regarding the allegation of criminal conspiracy, respondent No. 1 has admitted that it did not find enough materials to prosecute any of the Bank officials. In the absence of the Bank officials as accused, it is not understood as to how a charge of criminal conspiracy to defraud the Bank can be sustained in a long drawn trial. 24. In this connection it may not be out of place to mention that CBI, the premier investigating agency of the country, appears to be quite over-burdened with a large number of cases all over the country, stretching its limited resources almost to a point of rupture. In such circumstances, it would be in the interest of justice if CBI reserves its focus and energy on the major cases which it is handling instead of persisting with cases which may partake the character of lame prosecution. Persisting with such prosecution may also have the effect of dissuading prospective parties from amicably settling their civil liabilities. 25. At this stage, relevant portion of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Narendra Lal Jain (supra) may be usefully extracted. "13. In the present case, as already seen, the offence with which the respondent-accused had been charged are under Sections 120-B/420 of the Penal Code. 25. At this stage, relevant portion of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Narendra Lal Jain (supra) may be usefully extracted. "13. In the present case, as already seen, the offence with which the respondent-accused had been charged are under Sections 120-B/420 of the Penal Code. The civil liability of the respondents to pay the amount to the Bank has already been settled amicably. The terms of such settlement have been extracted above (see para 3). No subsisting grievance of the Bank in this regard has been brought to the notice of the Court. While the offence under Section 420 IPC is compoundable the offence under Section 120-B IPC is not. To the latter offence the ratio laid down in B.S. Joshi and Nikhil Merchant would apply if the facts of the given case would so justify. The observation in Gian Singh (para 61) will not be attracted in the present case in view of the offences alleged i.e. under Sections 420/120-B IPC. 14. In the present case, having regard to the fact that the liability to make good the monetary loss suffered by the Bank had been mutually settled between the parties and the accused had accepted the liability in this regard, the High Court had thought it fit to invoke its power under Section 482 Cr. P.C. We do not see how such exercise of power can be faulted or held to be erroneous. Section 482 of the Code inheres in the High Court the power to make such order as may be considered necessary to, inter alia, prevent the abuse of the process of law or to serve the ends of justice. While it will be wholly unnecessary to revert or refer to the settled position in law with regard to the contours of the power available under Section 482 Cr. P.C. it must be remembered that continuance of a criminal proceeding which is likely to become oppressive or may partake the character of a lame prosecution would be good ground to invoke the extraordinary power under Section 482 Cr. P.C." 26. Following the decision of the Apex Court as referred to above and considering all aspects of the matter, Court is of the view that present is a fit case where the inherent power of this Court u/s. 482 Cr. P.C." 26. Following the decision of the Apex Court as referred to above and considering all aspects of the matter, Court is of the view that present is a fit case where the inherent power of this Court u/s. 482 Cr. P.C. to quash the proceedings in Special Case No. 4792/2003 pending in the Court of Special Judicial Magistrate, Kamrup at Guwahati may be invoked. Accordingly, proceedings in the said Special Case No. 4792/2003 are hereby quashed. Criminal petition is accordingly allowed. Petition allowed.