JUDGMENT (Prayer: Criminal Original Petition has been filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C, to call for the records in Crime No.R.C.No.MA12017A0032/2017 on the file of the respondent police and to quash the same as against the petitioner arrayed as accused No.6.) 1. The petitioner is A6 in the impugned F.I.R. 2. This Criminal Original Petition has been filed by the petitioners, to call for the records in Crime No.R.C.No.MA12017A0032/2017 on the file of the respondent police and to quash the same as against the petitioner arrayed as accused No.6. 3 (a) The 6th accused in the impugned F.I.R seeks to quash the F.I.R on the ground that there is no criminality is found in the statement of the dues and nor in the D.R.T proceedings initiated by the bank, besides the properties of the borrower were sold in public auction. Thereafter, there was a proposal for one time settlement approved by the Board of Directors of the S.B.I in consultation with member of the R.B.I and the amount has been settled and the civil proceedings before the D.R.T in final decree proceedings of the case has been settled in D.R.T O.A.No.254/2010 and the final decree proceedings by way of application filed on behalf of the bank and the same was dismissed as settled out of Court on 11.06.2015. (b) Thereafter, nearly 2 1/2 years after the above said order, an anonymous complaint seems to have received by the respondent police leading to registration of the case. Even after more than 4 years, the respondent police could not find any material and same is in dormant stage and seeks for quashment of the proceedings qua the accused-A6/petitioner. 4. Mr.K.Srinivasan, learned Special Public Prosecutor(CBI) filed a counter on behalf of the respondent. In the counter, decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in C.B.I Vs.Maninder Singh's case in Crl.A.No.1496 of 2009; Rumi Dhar Vs.State of Bengal in Crl.A.No.661 of 2009; the scope of the quash petition in M/s.Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt.Ltd Vs.State of Maharashtra and others in Crl.A.No.330 of 2021 and State of Tamil Nadu Vs.Thirukkural Perumal in 1995 SCC (2) 443 have been referred to. 5. 5. After going through the counter, I find that except reproduction of the contents of the complaint and the F.I.R, I find there is no indication as to any investigation has been done or indicating any stage of the investigation, and as rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner/accused, the counter is totally silent about as to whether any progress being made in the complaint. Except citing the above 4 judgments and the reproduction of contents the F.I.R, there is nothing in the counter. 6. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Special Public Prosecutor (CBI cases). 7. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner herein/A6 is a non-executive chair person and is no way connected with the day to day management of the Company and the Company has availed loan from the S.B.I. 8. This Court has perused the following records, filed by petitioner i) the records of the approval of Chief General Manager, Corporate centre; (ii) Credit Committee approval from the Trust Assets Management Committee and its resolution; (iii) Approval of Executive Credit Company Committee at corporate centre; (iv) The decision of the Board at the corporate centre /Head office of the S.B.I and (v) Intimation of the approval of the compromise before the D.R.T by the Bank and order passed by the D.R.T in Original Application No.254/2010, and considered the same. 9. The brief facts leading to filing of the loan recovery proceedings in O.A.No.254 of 2010 before the D.R.T and settlement arrived at in the final decree proceedings of the D.R.T as seen from the records are summarized hereunder:- (a) M/s.Quintegra Solutions Limited (in short QSL), is a global information technology services and consulting company, formed by merger of two technology companies M/s.Transys Technologies and M/s.Soffia Software during 2003. QSL is a public limited company listed in BSE, NSE & MSE. (b) The company's main operations/customers were based in USA. QSL is basically a service provider for BFSI companies (Banking, Financial Services & Insurance) like Freddle Mac and Fannie Mae Ensemble Chimes Global (ECG) Washington Mututal Fund (WMF) (c) The above companies were mainly engaged in mortgage related banking services. (d) During 2006-07, QSL invested USD 4 million for acquiring 100% stake in valley, USA and acquired 3 niche education products from Jadellite Technologies Pvt Ltd, Singapore. (d) During 2006-07, QSL invested USD 4 million for acquiring 100% stake in valley, USA and acquired 3 niche education products from Jadellite Technologies Pvt Ltd, Singapore. QSL also acquired M/s.Pingho Associates Corporation (PAC) USA, an IT consulting and staffing firm at a cost of USD 35 Million (Rs.140.00 crores) (e) The overall cost of acquisition - Rs.80.00 crores (cash payout) was funded by the bank through Term loan /Corporate Loan of Rs.60 crores sanctioned during Oct'2007. The balance of finance for both the acquisitions was contributed by way of unsecured loans of Rs.20 crores and internal accruals of Rs.7 crores. (f) Before the fruits of PAC were reaped by the company, it had suffered the onslaught of global melt down. PAC had filed bankruptcy petitions with US Bankruptcy Court under Section 11 of US Bankruptcy Act during June 2009 in the United States Bankruptcy Court, Eastern District of Virginia. After carrying out proper evaluation, the Court appointed a creditor committee for studying the viability of the re-organized business. During 2012 the committee had recommended for liquidation under Chapter 7 and the same was carried out. They have also levied a penalty of USD 52,500 on Quintegra Solutions which was not paid. On account of the above, the investment made by Quintegra Solutions became zero and reviving of the business realizing of any value of the amount invested became impossible. Further the company's receivables had become bad debts and necessitated the writing off the investment in PAC. In respect of Valley USA, due to the market collapse, QSL has closed down all business in USA and Valley USA was also closed in the process. (g) Regarding Jadellite Technologies Private Limited, Singapore the Company was liquidated and closed in the year 2010. The winding up petition was filed by one of the customer NCS PTE Limited in the Singapore Court in the year 2010 and liquidator was appointed in the year 2010 itself. Since then it is closed. (h) When, sub-prime crisis broke in US, the first to be affected were the BFSI companies. Bankruptcy petition filed by ECG, WMF in April 2008 affected the cash flows of QSL. Since QSL was mainly depending on business from US, they could not withstand the severe cash crunch caused by global developments. (i) The account was restructured on 30.12.2008. (h) When, sub-prime crisis broke in US, the first to be affected were the BFSI companies. Bankruptcy petition filed by ECG, WMF in April 2008 affected the cash flows of QSL. Since QSL was mainly depending on business from US, they could not withstand the severe cash crunch caused by global developments. (i) The account was restructured on 30.12.2008. The activity level had been very low since March, 2009 which resulted inadequate cash flow to service loan obligations. The account became irregular and turned NPA and was migrated to SAMB, Chennai for resolution of the account. (j) Suit filed in DRT-1, Chennai on 24.09.2010 and numbered as O.A.No.254/2010. Suit was decreed on 04.07.2014 and order copy received on 08.09.2014. Cost memo filed on 22.09.2014 and DRC is yet to be issued, at the relevant point of time. (k) Demand notice under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act was issued on 21.09.2010 and possession notice under Section 13(4) of the Act issued on 16.03.2011 and 17.03.2011, physical possession of the properties were taken on 30.11.2013 and 02.12.2013. (l) The properties were brought for auction sale under SARAESI Act on 18.11.2013. In the aforesaid auction sale, Bank sold one of the properties (a Flat) for Rs.0.40cr. The other property could not be sold as there were no bidders. (m) The Bank again brought the remaining property i.e., Office building at Eldams Road, Chennai for auction sale under SARFAESI Act twice on 29.01.2014 and 26.03.2014 respectively. (n) The S.B.I corporate office at Bombay on consideration of the records of the approval by the corporate centre and credit committee approval from the Trust Assessment Management Committee and approval of Executive Credit Company Committee at corporate centre and the opinion of the representative of the R.B.I (Reserve Bank of India) had arrived at a decision at the Board level at corporate centre for approval of the one time settlement O.T.S and the said intimation of approval of compromise was filed by the Bank before the D.R.T resulted in terminating the D.R.T proceedings as Settled Out of Court. 10 (a). 10 (a). Thus, to sum, this Court finds that the A1 Company was a consulting company formed by merger of two technologies company and the said company have been listed in BSE, NSE & MSE and the main operation is based in USA and the manner of the availing the loan and expansion and further development of the booming of the company during the period and subsequently getting lightning shock from the world economical recession and suffered and underwent the bankruptcy proceedings before the USA court and also singapore court, resulted in loss accrued to the company. (b) Consequently, company suffered huge loss and again when the sub prime crisis in U.S.A in the year 2007-2008, the company also suffered second shock of financial crisis leading to declaring the account as NPA as could be seen from the settlement proceedings approved by the committee compromise settlement proposal committee which is certified to be in conformity with R.B.I directives. (c) Since after the declaring the loan as NPA, the DRT proceedings have been initiated by the bank in O.A.No.254/2010 filed in the year 2010 and the preliminary decree was passed on 04.07.2014 and compromise has been recorded by the DRT proceedings holding that the matter is settled out of court on payment of the one time settlement amount by the Directors of the company by raising funds in personal capacity and personal borrowings and the DRT proceedings was dismissed as settled out of Court. Two-and-ahalf years of after the settlement, the present anonymous complaint seems to have been received by the respondent police resulted in registration of the impugned F.I.R. 11. Two-and-ahalf years of after the settlement, the present anonymous complaint seems to have been received by the respondent police resulted in registration of the impugned F.I.R. 11. The above factual matrix is summarized for the purpose of scrutinizing as to whether there is any element of allegation of forgery or creation of false document or fabrication of document or producing of fabricated document as genuine and it is found that there is nothing to indicate that the above said elements are involved in this sanction of loan, enhancement of credit loan and it is seen from records that financial sufferance was due to the global melting of the economy in USA happened in the year 2007 and 2009 and due to the orders passed by the USA bankruptcy Court and the Singapore Court in the year 2010, the respective companies in which the borrower had very big quantum of share has suffered loss, consequently, resulted in non payment of loan. 12. On the factual matrix as culled out in the preceding paragraphs, the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in C.B.I Vs.Maninder Singh's case in Crl.A.No.1496 of 2009; Rumi Dhar Vs.State of Bengal in Crl.A.No.661 of 2009; the scope of the quash petition in M/s.Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt.Ltd Vs.State of Maharashtra and others in Crl.A.No.330 of 2021 and State of Tamil Nadu Vs.Thirukkural Perumal in 1995 SCC (2) 443, relating to allegation of forgery, fabrication of the records, production of the forged document, as genuine, or element of fraud and cheating are conspicuously absent in this case and no such allegation or averment is also found in counter filed by the respondent. 13. Consequently, in the absence of any element of criminal intention in connection with offence stated under Sections 465, 468, 469, 471, 474 I.P.C., I find that in the decision cited by the C.B.I in the counter affidavit viz., C.B.I Vs.Maninder Singh in Crl.A.No.1496 of 2009 wherein there are a specific allegation to deceive the bank by producing fraudulent document and obtaining loan by fraudulent means, and in those nature of cases, the Hon'ble Apex Court held that such cases should not be taken up for quashment. 14. 14. Here in the instant case, no such incident has been stated in the complaint either by the officials of State Bank of India or the Consortium bank or by any other Nationalized bank against the company and also the investigation of the serious fraud also states there is no such complaint. It is based upon an anonymous petition nearly 3 years after the disposal of the DRT proceedings it appears that the case has been registered in F.I.R and still laying at very same stage. 15. In the decision reported in C.B.I Vs.B.B.Agarwal's case in 2020 (1) SCC Crl.429, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has quashed the charge sheet filed by the C.B.I against 12 persons, on the ground that ''the entire undisputed controversy mentioned above, we also find that there is no criminality issue surviving qua those accused, who are alive so as to allow the prosecuting agency to continue with the criminal trial on merits. Indeed, it would be an abuse of process, as was rightly held by the High Court to which we concur''. 16. In the year 2020 in K.Virupaksha and another Vs.State of Karnataka and another reported in (2020) 4 SCC 440 , the criminal proceedings were quashed in the present case, as only civil matters were in issue and in the State of Orissa Vs.Debendra Nath Padhi] in (2005) 1 SCC 568 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that in appropriate cases, the High Court can exercise powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C to prevent abuse of process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice within the parameters laid down in Bajanlal's case (State of Haryana Vs.Bajanlal) in 1992 SCC Crl.426. 17. In the recent decision, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Crl.A.No.1224 of 2022 [Wyeth Limited and Ors Vs.State of Bihar and another] dated 11.08.2022 has held that when the matter is purely civil in nature without any element of criminality, the same can be quashed. 18. 17. In the recent decision, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Crl.A.No.1224 of 2022 [Wyeth Limited and Ors Vs.State of Bihar and another] dated 11.08.2022 has held that when the matter is purely civil in nature without any element of criminality, the same can be quashed. 18. On consideration of the above proceedings on the above factual matrix of the case in hand, I find that except non payment of the loan amount, there is no criminality is involved so as to fall under the ratio laid down by the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in C.B.I Vs.Maninder Singh's case in Crl.A.No.1496 of 2009; Rumi Dhar Vs.State of Bengal in Crl.A.No.661 of 2009; the scope of the quash petition in M/s.Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt.Ltd Vs.State of Maharashtra and others in Crl.A.No.330 of 2021 and State of Tamil Nadu Vs.Thirukkural Perumal in 1995 SCC (2) 443. 19. Whereas on the factual matrix of the case as stated supra, I find that in view of the compromise decree entered before the DRT Court after approval of the one time settlement [OTS] by the Board of Directors SBI at the central corporate office, which was also certified by the member from RBI, the settlement proceedings have been arrived at. On payment of OTS, the DRT proceedings has been dismissed as settled out of court, and hence non payment of loan amount is simplicitor without any criminal intention. 20. Taking note of entirety of the above stated circumstances and the final decree proceedings of the DRT and the subsequent arrival and approval of OTS by the central board at central office/corporate office of SBI with the approval of the R.B.I member, the DRT appears to have concluded that the settlement is arrived at and accordingly, terminated the DRT proceedings as settled out of Court and hence the entire gamut of the above facts goes to show that it is nothing but non payment of loan simplicitor. Thus, in the absence of anything to indicate offence under Sections 465, 468, 469, 471, 474 I.P.C., in involved, in this case, I find that the decision reported by the Division Bench in Debendra Nath Pathi's case and C.B.I Vs.B.B.Agarwal's case and K.Virupaksha cited supra are squarely applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case. 21. Thus, in the absence of anything to indicate offence under Sections 465, 468, 469, 471, 474 I.P.C., in involved, in this case, I find that the decision reported by the Division Bench in Debendra Nath Pathi's case and C.B.I Vs.B.B.Agarwal's case and K.Virupaksha cited supra are squarely applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case. 21. This Court also taking note of the fact that there was no indication in the counter filed by the C.B.I as to the level of investigation and due to the long delay though mere delay may not a reason to consider it singly and however having read it cumulatively with the other factors discussed supra I am of the considered view that the above facts are sufficient enough to come to the conclusion that continuation of the proceedings amounts to abuse of process of law and taking into note of the entirety of the circumstances narrated in the preceding paragraphs, though not singly, but on a cumulative is liable to be quashed qua the petitioner alone. 22. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is allowed and the impugned F.I.R is quashed qua the accused/petitioner alone. Consequently, connected Crl.M.P is closed.