Research › Browse › Judgment

Supreme Court of India · body

2024 DIGILAW 1267 (SC)

Indian Bank v. Steel Hypermart India Pvt. Ltd.

2024-12-05

ABHAY S.OKA, AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH

body2024
ORDER : 1. Leave granted. 2. Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties. 3. A case was registered by the Central Bureau of Investigation, Banking Securities Fraud Branch on 10th January, 2021 against the respondents and others for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 468, 471 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, ‘the IPC’) and Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short, ‘the P.C. Act’). A petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, ‘the Cr.P.C.’) was filed for quashing. By the impugned judgment, the High Court has allowed the said petition. 4. Learned senior counsel appearing for the appellants has taken us through the impugned judgment. The submission is that only on the footing that the Review Committee is dealing with the case afresh, the High Court has quashed the First Information Report (FIR) without even adverting to the nature of the offences alleged against the respondents. It is submitted that only on the basis of certain circulars, the impugned order has been passed. Moreover, he pointed out that in the petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. filed by the respondents, not a single ground of challenge has been incorporated. 5. Learned senior counsel representing for the respondents supported the impugned judgment by pointing out that there are detailed findings recorded by the High Court and therefore, no interference is called for. 6. We have perused the relevant findings of the High Court. In paragraph 14, the High Court noted that the Review Committee of the appellant -Bank is examining the question whether the first respondent can be declared as a ‘defaulter’. In paragraph 15, the High Court concluded that the action of registration of crime is on the footing that the first respondent is a willful defaulter. Thereafter, the High Court refers to the interim order in which statement of learned counsel for the appellant was recorded that review committee is seized of the matter. Only on the footing that the outcome of the decision of the Review Committee will affect the FIR, the learned Single Judge has interfered. 7. We have perused the allegations in the FIR. The same do not depend on the question whether the first respondent becomes a defaulter. Therefore, in our view, the grounds on which FIR has been quashed are not at all legal and proper. 7. We have perused the allegations in the FIR. The same do not depend on the question whether the first respondent becomes a defaulter. Therefore, in our view, the grounds on which FIR has been quashed are not at all legal and proper. Only on the ground of pendency of the review proceedings on the question whether the first respondent is defaulter, the High Court could not have quashed the FIR without allowing the Investigating Agency to investigate. 8. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant in the Civil Appeal arising out of SLP (Crl.) No.8894 of 2022 is right in contending that in the petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. filed by the respondents not a single ground of challenge has been pleaded. Faced with with these difficulties, the learned senior counsel appearing for the respondent submitted that an opportunity may be granted to the respondents to amend the quashing petition for incorporating the grounds of challenge. 9. For the reasons recorded above, the impugned judgment and order is quashed and set aside and Criminal Petition No.919 of 2021 is restored to the file of the High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru. The restored petition shall be immediately placed before the Roster Bench. The High Court will permit the respondents to amend the petition under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. for incorporating the grounds of challenge. Thereafter, the High Court will examine the petition afresh and also the question of grant of interim relief. 10. To enable the respondents to move the High Court, we direct that the respondents nos. 2 to 4 (accused) shall not be arrested in connection with FIR No.RC0782021E002 for a period of one month from today subject to condition that they shall cooperate with the CBI for investigation. We clarify that investigation will proceed subject to the orders which may be passed by the High Court. 11. Appeals are accordingly allowed on above terms. 12. All contentions in the restored petition are kept open to be decided by the High Court. 13. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.