ORDER : J. M. Khazi, J. These two petitions are filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to quash the criminal proceeding initiated in C.C.No.838/2016 on the file of JMFC-2, Belagavi by setting aside order dated 27.09.2016 by the said Court taking cognizance against the accused. 2. While Crl.P.No.101198/2017 is filed by accused No.1, Crl.P.No.101199/2017 is filed by accused Nos.3 to 5. 3. Since these two petitions are arising out of the same case and involve common discussion, they are clubbed together and disposed of by a common order. 4. For the sake of convenience, parties are referred to by their ranks before the trial Court. 5. In support of the petition, accused Nos.1, 3 to 5 have contended that even if the entire prosecution case is accepted in its totality, no offence under Sections 467 , 468 and 471 IPC is made out. There is no evidence of false document or forged document to attract Section 464 of IPC . The prosecution has not verified whether the power plant was completed by BCL. In the absence of proof that the power plant does not exist, the allegation of diversion of funds is not established. No reasons are assigned by the trial Court to the effect that there is a material to take cognizance. The absence of visit by the investigating officer to the subject power plant, the prosecution has failed to substantiate allegation of diversion of funds. M/s Rao Srinivasan and Associates have given report regarding proper utilisation of funds and execution of the work for which payments have been made to M/s Bhaskar Jadhav Contractors, M/s Dhananjay Industries and Deshmukh contractors. 6. Having regard to the nature of the evidence collected during the investigation, there is every likelihood of prosecution not able to prove the allegations. There is also delay of more than 15 years and the fundamental right of the accused is violated. Given the large number of witnesses, several years may take to dispose of the case. There is no material to prove the allegation of conspiracy. In fact, BCL has arrived at a settlement of all its dues with the bank by paying Rs.15 Crores and there is no claim of the bank against the accused persons. 7. In support of arguments, on behalf of the accused persons, learned Senior counsel representing them has relied upon the following decisions: (i) CBI Vs. In fact, BCL has arrived at a settlement of all its dues with the bank by paying Rs.15 Crores and there is no claim of the bank against the accused persons. 7. In support of arguments, on behalf of the accused persons, learned Senior counsel representing them has relied upon the following decisions: (i) CBI Vs. Duncans Agro Industries Ltd ( Duncans Agro ), (1996) 5 SCC 591 . (ii) G.Sagar Suri Vs. State of U.P. ( Sagar Suri ), (2000) 2 SCC 636 . (iii) B.S.Joshi Vs. State of Haryana ( B.S.Joshi ), (2003) 4 SCC 675 . (iv) Pankaj Kumar Vs. State of Maharashtra ( Pankaj Kumar ), (2008) 16 SCC 117 . (v) Nikhil Merchant Vs. CBI ( Nikhil Merchant ), (2008) 9 SCC 677 . (vi) Mohd. Ibrahim Vs. State of Bihar ( Mohd.Ibrahim, (2009) 8 SCC 751 . (vii) Shiji alias Pappu & Ors Vs. Radhika and Anr ( Shiji alias Pappu, (2011) 10 SCC 705 . (viii) CBI Vs. Narendra Lal Jain ( Narendra Lal Jain, (2014) 5 SCC 364 . (ix) Gold Quest Internation Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of Tamil Nadu & Ors. ( Gold quest, (2014) 15 SCC 235 . (x) Vesa Holdings (P) Ltd Vs. State of Kerala ( Vesa Holdings, (2015) 8 SCC 293 . (xi) Tarina Vs.Union of Indian & Anr ( Tarina, 2024 SCC Online SC 2696. 8. CBI has filed statement of objections stating that the petitions are not maintainable either in law or on facts and liable to be dismissed with exemplary cost. Based on the source information, on 26.04.2002 case came to be registered in RC.1(E)/2002 for the offences punishable under Sections 120-B r/w 420, 467, 468 , 471 IPC and Section 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of PC Act 1988. It is time that the Directors of M/s Belgundi Cement Pvt Ltd (‘BCPL’ for short) availed credit facilities from Central Bank of India, Belagavi branch and Mumbai main office for cement and power projects at Belgundi village Belagavi. Accused No.1 was the Managing Director from the date of registration of the company. It is time that the Directors of M/s Belgundi Cement Pvt Ltd (‘BCPL’ for short) availed credit facilities from Central Bank of India, Belagavi branch and Mumbai main office for cement and power projects at Belgundi village Belagavi. Accused No.1 was the Managing Director from the date of registration of the company. All the accused persons have entered into criminal conspiracy from August 1991 to November 1998, to cheat the Central Bank of India, in the matter of availing credit facilities and diverting the funds for other purpose and thereby they have caused wrongful loss to the tune of more than Rs.10 crores to the bank during the above mentioned period. 7.1 The accused/petitioner submitted invoice dated 17.08.1991 for Rs.165 lakhs, in the letterhead of M/s Sumata Intercontinental, showing purchase/supply of boiler for the power project. This invoice was submitted in the name of P.C. Bhargava, Resident Director of M/s BCPL and obtained disbursement of Rs.123.75 lakhs from the bank, which was never used for purchase of the boiler. Accused No.3 MV Chandrasekhar in furtherance of the criminal conspiracy with the other accused submitted invoice in the name of M/s RCS Exports to Central Bank of India showing execution of work. The proceeds were credited to the account of accused No.3, which was later transferred to M/s BCPL M/s. Suma Intercontinental as well as M/s RCS Exports are non-existing companies. The accused persons in furtherance of criminal conspiracy again obtained another loan of Rs.130 lakhs for the purchase of one more boiler. In all the accused persons obtained a loan of Rs.253.75 lakhs and out of this, accused person manage to buy two secondhand boilers at a price of Rs.68 lakhs only and diverted the remaining funds for other purposes. 7.2 On 07.05.1997, the accused person sought additional term loan of Rs.630 lakhs to complete the power project. Out of Rs.630 lakhs sanctioned by Central Bank of India, more than Rs.4 crores have been diverted by the accused No.1 through his own group accounts with the help of his servants and employees. Rs.40,81,238/- is disbursed from Mumbai main office in the name of accused No.4 Bhaskar Jadhav, who is the domestic servant of accused No.1. Accused No.4 along with accused No.1 floated a fictitious company in the name of M/s Deshmukh contractors and submitted various invoices and bills showing execution of civil and mechanical works for the power project. Rs.40,81,238/- is disbursed from Mumbai main office in the name of accused No.4 Bhaskar Jadhav, who is the domestic servant of accused No.1. Accused No.4 along with accused No.1 floated a fictitious company in the name of M/s Deshmukh contractors and submitted various invoices and bills showing execution of civil and mechanical works for the power project. All these documents in the name of the said firm was signed by accused No.4. 7.3 A sum of Rs.1,21,17,139 was disbursed from Central Bank of India, Mumbai main branch in the name of M/s Deshmukh Contractors and submitted higher value invoices showing execution of work of different nature for the project. An amount of Rs.2,18,46,246/- was disbursed from Central Bank of India and it was credited to the account of M/s Dhananjay Industries, maintained at HSBC Ltd Fort branch, Mumbai, which is jointly operated by the accused No.1 and his wife accused No.5. More than 90% of the amount was transferred to the account of accused No.1 and that of associated group accounts. 7.4 Accused No.1 did not contribute any money on his own, but cheated Central Bank of India by producing false receipts and invoices. By this mode, accused No.1 in furtherance of criminal conspiracy with the other accused have caused wrongful loss of more than Rs.10 Crores to the Central Bank of India. After conducting detailed investigation, a final Report was filed against the accused persons, including accused No.2, V.K Bhandari, the then Manager of Central Bank of India. However, vide order dated 14.09.2011, in Crl.R.P.No.212/2009, he was discharged by this Court. The same is upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SLP(Crl) No.6554/2014. 7.5 The FIR was registered against the accused persons on the basis of source information and the name of the public servant was included in the final report. Accused No.2 was discharged and now the remaining accused persons are seeking discharge on the ground that accused No.2 has been discharged and they have settled the dues to the bank. Payment of dues to the bank or settlement is not a ground to quash the criminal proceedings against the remaining persons as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Accused No.2 was discharged mainly on the ground that the offences under the provisions of prevention of corruption are not attracted, whereas the allegations against other accused are cheating the bank and using as genuine forged documents. Accused No.2 was discharged mainly on the ground that the offences under the provisions of prevention of corruption are not attracted, whereas the allegations against other accused are cheating the bank and using as genuine forged documents. Charge sheet make out a strong prima facie case against the accused persons. Prosecution be given an opportunity to prove the allegations against accused and pray to dismiss the petitions. 9. Learned counsel representing the complainant has relied upon the following decisions: (i) Harry Dhaul Vs. CBI ( Harry Dhaul, Crl.P.No.1859/2005 DD: 05.02.2008. (ii) Harry Dhaul Vs. CBI ( Harry Dhaul, Crl.P.No.7710/2009 DD: 14.09.2011. (iii) State of Maharashtra Through CBI. Vs. Vikram Anantrai Doshi & Ors. ( Vikram Anartrai Doshi, 2015 SAR (Criminal) 43. 10. Heard arguments of both sides and perused the record. 11. Thus accused Nos.1, 3 to 5 are seeking discharge on the ground that accused No.2, who was the Manager of the bank and who was instrumental in granting loan is discharged and that the loan taken from the Central bank of India is repaid by way of settlement. 12. The undisputed facts are that accused No.1 was the Managing Director of BCPL. The Directors of BCPL availed credit facility from Central Bank of India, Belagavi branch and Mumbai Main office for cement and power project for their company situated at Belgundi village Belagavi. 13. The allegations are that a conspiracy was hatched to plan to cheat the bank and cause wrongful loss by diverting the loan amount for other purposes. Invoice dated 17.08.1991 for Rs.165 lakhs was issued in the letterhead of M/s Sumata Intercontinental showing purchase/supply of a boiler for the power project and the said invoice was issued in the name of P.C Bhargava, Resident Director of BCPL and obtained disbursement of Rs.1,23,75,000/-. However, no such boiler was purchased. Similarly, accused No.3 M.V Chandrasekhar submitted an invoice in the name of M/s RCS exports to Central Bank of India showing execution of the work. The proceeds were credited to the account of accused No.3, which was later transferred to BCPL. 14. It is the specific allegations of the prosecution that M/s Sumata Intercontinental, as well as M/s RCS Exports are non-existent companies. Similarly, it is alleged that the accused persons obtained another loan of Rs.1,30,00,000 for purchase of one more boiler. The proceeds were credited to the account of accused No.3, which was later transferred to BCPL. 14. It is the specific allegations of the prosecution that M/s Sumata Intercontinental, as well as M/s RCS Exports are non-existent companies. Similarly, it is alleged that the accused persons obtained another loan of Rs.1,30,00,000 for purchase of one more boiler. Though, loan in a total sum of Rs.253.75 lakhs was availed, only a sum of Rs.68 lakhs was spent to purchase two second hand boilers and the remaining amount was diverted for other purposes. 15. It is further alleged in the charge sheet that on 07.05.1997, the accused person availed additional term loan of Rs.630 lakhs to complete the power project. Out of this more than Rs.4,00,00,000/- were diverted by the accused persons through their group accounts with the help of servants and employees. An amount of Rs.40,81,238/- is disbursed in the name of accused No.4 Bhaskar Jadhav, who is the domestic servant of the accused and who has floated a fictitious firm by name M/s Deshmukh contractors and submitted various invoices and bills showing execution of civil and mechanical works for the power project. In all Rs.1,21,17,139/- is disbursed by the bank in the name of M/s Deshmukh contractors and submitted higher value invoices showing execution of works of different nature for the project. Similarly, a sum of Rs.2,18,46,246/- is disbursed in the account of M/s Dhananjay industries which is jointly operated by the accused Nos.1 and 5. More than 90% of the amount was transferred to the account of accused No.1 and his associated group accounts. While allegedly carrying out the work, accused No.1 has not contributed any funds on his own. 16. Thus, there are specific allegations that the loan availed from the Central Bank was not utilised for the purpose for which it was sanctioned. It is for the prosecution to establish that M/s Sumata Intercontinental and M/s RCS Exports are non-existing companies. Similarly, M/s Deshmukh contractors is also a fictitious company. Accused No.4 Bhaskar Jadhav, a domestic servant of accused No.1 was projected as the Director of the said company. It is submitted by the learned Senior counsel for accused that there is no rule that a domestic servant cannot be become a contractor. Of course, there is no such prohibition. Similarly, M/s Deshmukh contractors is also a fictitious company. Accused No.4 Bhaskar Jadhav, a domestic servant of accused No.1 was projected as the Director of the said company. It is submitted by the learned Senior counsel for accused that there is no rule that a domestic servant cannot be become a contractor. Of course, there is no such prohibition. However, what is required to be examined is whether in fact he became a contractor and established a company and executed the work. 17. It is submitted by the learned counsel for accused that the power project was established and the report of the chartered accountant indicate that more than 85% of the work was executed. The accused have also produced a document said to be an agreement with Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Limited regarding synchronisation approval for 5 MW stage one power generation from BPCL. This document is of the year 2006. The accused have not produced any documents to show that in fact power was generated and was supplied or utilised. Of course, it is the defence of the accused which is to be established at the trial. It is also submitted that the loan has been repaid. However, what is repaid was a one-time settlement without paying the actual interest with the principal amount. The issue involved in this case is whether for the purpose of availing loan, the accused have created fictitious companies and without actual utilisation of funds for the purpose for which it have sanctioned diverted the funds and utilised for other purpose. There is prima facie material to show that the companies in whose favour the loan amount was got disbursed were fictitious and non-existing companies and in fact, the loan amount has been received by the accused persons. It is also for the prosecution to prove that the boilers was not purchased as projected, but on the other hand only a sum of Rs.68 lakhs were spent for purchasing second hand boilers. 18. Accused Nos.1, 3 to 5 are also seeking discharge on the ground that accused No.2 is already discharged. It is pertinent to note that accused No.2 was discharged on the ground that he was not the only person who was decision making authority and the decision to grant loan was a collective decision of the officers working in the said Central Bank of India. It is pertinent to note that accused No.2 was discharged on the ground that he was not the only person who was decision making authority and the decision to grant loan was a collective decision of the officers working in the said Central Bank of India. However, the discharge of accused No.2 would not be ground for the other accused to seek discharge since the allegations against them are totally different. It is also submitted by the learned Senior counsel for accused that the loan was taken against mortgage of immovable properties and there was sufficient safety available for the bank to recover the loan amount. Whether immovable properties were mortgaged for availing loan is also not the matter in issue. The specific allegations against accused No.1, 3 to 5 is that they have availed loan amount, but not utilised the same for the purpose for which it was sanctioned and they have diverted it to themselves through fictitious companies. Therefore, the fact that immovable properties were available as a security for the loan would not absolve the liability of these accused. 19. The investigating officer on detailed investigation has collected sufficient material to proceed against accused No.1, 3 to 5 and rightly the learned Magistrate has rejected the application filed by the accused persons seeking discharge. So far as the decisions relied upon by the accused are concerned, they are not applicable to the case on hand. In the result the petitions fail and accordingly following: ORDER (i) Petitions filed by accused Nos.1, 3 to 5 under Section 482 of Cr.P.C are rejected. (ii) The impugned order dated 27.09.2016 and 06.12.2016 in Criminal Case No.838/2016 on the file of JMFC-II, Belagavi is confirmed. (iii) The Registry is directed to send a copy of this order to the trial Court forthwith.