JUDGMENT : SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI, J. 1. Heard Mr. Indrajit Sinha, learned counsel for the petitioner appearing through Video Conferencing and Mr. Prashant Pallav, learned counsel for the CBI. 2. This petition has been filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 praying therein for quashing the entire criminal proceeding arising out of First Information Report being Regular C.B.I. Case No.5 of 2025 (RC0242025A0006), dated 29.05.2025, registered for the offence punishable under Section 120(B) read with Section 420, 467, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, pending in the Court of the learned Additional Judicial Commissioner-XVIII, Ranchi. 3. The prosecution case is that a written complaint vide PNB/RAN/CS/ SASTRA/2024-25 dated 21.02.2025 has been received from Shri Avijit Gupta, Circle Sastra Head, Assistant General Manager, 5 th Floor, Nile Complex, Kantatoli, Ranchi alleging therein that (1) M/s Rajeshwari Iron and Steel Company Private Limited, registered office at 71, Canning Street, 5 th Floor, Room No.512A, Kolkata, West Bengal, (2) Sumit Kejriwal, S/o Ashok Kumar Kejriwal, Director having address at 28, New Road, Ganesh Court, 5 th Floor, Alipore, Kolkata-700027, (3) Smt. Aasha Kejriwal, W/o Ashok Kumar Kejriwal, Director having address at 28, New Road, Ganesh Court, 5 th Floor, Alipore, Kolkata-700027, (4) Navin Rajgaria, S/o Champak Prasad Rajgaria having address at 243, C.R. Avenue, Kolkata-700006, (5) Amit Kejriwal, S/o Ashok Kumar Kejriwal, Guarantor having address at 28, New Road, Ganesh Court, 5 th Floor, Alipore, Kolkata-700027 and (6) Unknown public servants in criminal conspiracy with each other applied and managed to obtain credit facility of Rs.15.00 Crores (CC of Rs.5.00 Crores and LC of Rs.10.00 Crores) on 04.09.2012 from Regional Level Credit Committee from erstwhile United Bank of India, Ranchi, Jharkhand in their favour. The accused persons in criminal conspiracy with each other submitted fake title deed dated 4288 dated 31.12.2002 for the property at Dhopagachi located at Dag No.84, 85, 123, 124, 125, 127, 130, 133, 134, 136, 137, 139, 196, 223, 271, 277, JL No.43, Baruipur, South 24 Parganas (South) measuring 2 Acres 84 decimal existing in the name of one of Director/Guarantor Naveen Rajgaria for the properties located at South 24 Parganas, West Bengal as collateral security. It was also alleged that valuation and Search report submitted to the Bank over the period of time is contradictory in themselves. It was also alleged that valuation and Search report submitted to the Bank over the period of time is contradictory in themselves. The primary purpose, as stated by the accused company for which the loan was availed was to expand its business in trading/export and import of minerals, metals and agro based commodities. 4. Mr. Indrajit Sinha, learned counsel for the petitioner appearing through Video Conferencing submits that the said case has been registered on the written complaint filed by the Punjab National Bank before the opposite party for the offence of fraud by diversion of funds, criminal breach of trust, forgery etc. and thereby causing wrongful loss to the complainant Bank to the tune of Rs.1337.77 Lakhs. He further submits that in the written complaint, there is no allegation of diversion of the funds/loan amounts. He then submits that in light of the order of the Debts Recovery Tribunal, the matter has already been settled between the petitioner and the Bank and in view of that, the FIR may kindly be quashed. On these grounds, he submits that this criminal miscellaneous petition may kindly be allowed. 5. Mr. Prashant Pallav, learned counsel for the CBI opposed the prayer and submits that in the FIR, serious allegation is there of obtaining CC of Rs.5.00 Crores and LC of Rs.10.00 Crores on 04.09.2012 from Regional Level Credit Committee from erstwhile United Bank of India in favour of the accused persons. He further submits that the accused persons in criminal conspiracy with each other submitted fake title deed 4288 dated 31.12.2002 for the property at Dhopagachi located at Dag No.84, 85, 123, 124, 125, 127, 130, 133, 134, 136, 137, 139, 196, 223, 271, 277, JL No.43, Baruipur, South 24 Parganas (South) measuring 2 Acres 84 decimal existing in the name of one of Director/Guarantor Naveen Rajgaria for the properties located at South 24 Parganas, West Bengal as collateral security. He then submits that the allegations are also made that valuation and Search report submitted to the Bank over the period of time is contradictory in themselves. The primary purpose, as stated by the accused company for which the loan was availed was to expand its business in trading/export and import of minerals, metals and agro based commodities. He then submits that the allegations are also made that valuation and Search report submitted to the Bank over the period of time is contradictory in themselves. The primary purpose, as stated by the accused company for which the loan was availed was to expand its business in trading/export and import of minerals, metals and agro based commodities. He next submits that it has also been alleged that in furtherance of the criminal conspiracy hatched by the accused persons, the regular installments of the loan were also averted and the funds were got diverted consequently turning the loan as NPA on 30.06.2018. He also submits that the allegations are further there that the accused persons in criminal conspiracy with each other, during the period 2012-18, cheated the Punjab National Bank erstwhile United Bank of India to the tune of Rs.13.37 Crores and caused wrongful gain to themselves. He also submits that sufficient allegations are there in the FIR that too fraud has been made in the nationalized bank and in view of that, this offence has caused vital impact upon the economy of the country. He further submits that not only this, the petitioner is a habitual offender of such type of cases and he is also facing other criminal cases of that fraud. He then submits that in view of the order of the Debts Recovery Tribunal, the FIR cannot be quashed. The investigation is still going on. On these grounds, he submits that this criminal miscellaneous petition may kindly be dismissed. 6. In view of the above submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, it transpires that the allegations are made of taking CC of Rs.5.00 Crores and LC of Rs.10.00 Crores on the fake deed. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that there is no complaint with regard to diversion of the fund in the FIR, however, in the FIR that allegation is there and in view of that, the said submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner cannot be accepted. The fraud has already been made with the Bank and that too based on the forged document. 7. The fraud has already been made with the Bank and that too based on the forged document. 7. Identical situation was also there before the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Maharashtra v. Vikram Anantrai Doshi , reported in (2014) 15 SCC 29 and that judgment was further considered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Tamil Nadu, represented by Inspector of Police, Central Crime Branch v. R. Vasanthi Stanley and another , reported in (2016) 1 SCC 376 , wherein, at paragraphs 9, 10 and 11, the judgment passed in State of Maharashtra (supra) and identical situation to the present case have been considered, which read as under: “9. To appreciate the submissions advanced at the Bar, we may straightaway refer to the authority in State of Maharashtra v. Vikram Anantrai Doshi [ (2014) 15 SCC 29 : (2014) 10 Scale 690 ] . In the said case, the accused was charged for the offences punishable under Sections 120-B, 406, 420, 467, 468 and 471 IPC. The allegation in the said case was that Accused 1 had obtained letters of credit from State Bank of India and Dena Bank in favour of fictitious companies formed by the accused and used the said letters of credit to siphon off the funds from the banks. During the pendency of the case, the accused settled the dispute with the Bank by paying the amount and the Bank in turn had issued no-dues certificate. The Court referred to case in CBI v. A. Ravishankar Prasad [ (2009) 6 SCC 351 : (2009) 2 SCC (Cri) 1063] , wherein the pronouncements in CBI v. Duncans Agro Industries Ltd. [ (1996) 5 SCC 591 : 1996 SCC (Cri) 1045] and Nikhil Merchant [ (2008) 9 SCC 677 : (2008) 3 SCC (Cri) 858] were distinguished. It is necessary to note that the Court in Ravishankar Prasad case [ (2009) 6 SCC 351 : (2009) 2 SCC (Cri) 1063] referred to Inder Mohan Goswami v. State of Uttaranchal [ (2007) 12 SCC 1 : (2008) 1 SCC (Cri) 259] and stated thus : (A. Ravishankar Prasad case [ (2009) 6 SCC 351 : (2009) 2 SCC (Cri) 1063] , SCC pp. 362-63, paras 38-40) “38. 362-63, paras 38-40) “38. Let us consider the facts of this case and apply the ratio of Goswami case [ (2007) 12 SCC 1 : (2008) 1 SCC (Cri) 259] where facts are as follows: (I) The allegations are that the accused have committed serious offences such as forgery, fabrication of documents and used those documents as genuine. (II) The allegations are that the respondent- accused herein A. Ravishankar Prasad and A. Manohar Prasad have entered into a conspiracy with the Chairman and Managing Director and other officials of Indian Bank, Chennai with the object of cheating Indian Bank in the matter of recommending, sanctioning, disbursing huge credit facilities running over hundreds of crores. (III) Trial of all four cases are at an advanced stage in which 92 witnesses have already been examined. While applying the ratio of Goswami case [ (2007) 12 SCC 1 : (2008) 1 SCC (Cri) 259] , how can any court in its legitimate exercise of power under Section 482 CrPC quash the proceedings against accused A. Ravishankar Prasad and A. Manohar Prasad in the face of the aforesaid allegations? In the instant case, wrong application of the ratio of the said judgment has led to grave miscarriage of justice. 39. Careful analysis of all these judgments clearly reveals that the exercise of inherent powers would entirely depend on the facts and circumstances of each case. The object of incorporating inherent powers in the Code is to prevent abuse of the process of the court or to secure ends of justice. 40. Both English and the Indian courts have consistently taken the view that the inherent powers can be exercised in those exceptional cases where the allegations made in the first information report or the complaint, even if are taken on their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused. When we apply the settled legal position to the facts of this case it is not possible to conclude that the complaint and the charge-sheet prima facie do not constitute any offence against the respondents.” Being of this view, the Court in A. Ravishankar Prasad [ (2009) 6 SCC 351 : (2009) 2 SCC (Cri) 1063] allowed the appeal preferred by CBI. 10. 10. Apart from above, in Vikram Anantrai Doshi [ (2014) 15 SCC 29 : (2014) 10 Scale 690 ] the Court referred to Gian Singh v. State of Punjab [ (2012) 10 SCC 303 : (2012) 4 SCC (Civ) 1188 : (2013) 1 SCC (Cri) 160 : (2012) 2 SCC (L&S) 988] , with regard to the power of the High Court as regards the quashing of the criminal proceedings on the basis of a compromise. This Court also referred to Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab [ (2014) 6 SCC 466 : (2014) 3 SCC (Cri) 54] , Dimpey Gujral v. UT, Chandigarh [ (2013) 11 SCC 497 : (2012) 4 SCC (Cri) 35] and State of Rajasthan v. Shambhu Kewat [ (2014) 4 SCC 149 : (2014) 4 SCC (Cri) 781 : (2013) 14 Scale 235 ] and thereafter dwelt upon the ratio in CBI v. Narendra Lal Jain [ (2014) 5 SCC 364 : (2014) 2 SCC (Cri) 579] wherein the charges were framed under Section 120-B read with Section 420 IPC. A passage from the said judgment was reproduced which is to the following effect : (Vikram Anantrai Doshi case [(2014) 15 SCC 29 : (2014) 10 Scale 690 ] , SCC p. 40, para 22) “22. … ‘14. … The offences are certainly more serious; they are not private in nature. The charge of conspiracy is to commit offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act. The accused has also been charged for commission of the substantive offence under Section 471 IPC. Though the amounts due have been paid the same is under a private settlement between the parties unlike in Nikhil Merchant [ (2008) 9 SCC 677 : (2008) 3 SCC (Cri) 858] and Narendra Lal Jain [ (2014) 5 SCC 364 : (2014) 2 SCC (Cri) 579] where the compromise was a part of the decree of the Court. There is no acknowledgment on the part of the Bank of the exoneration of the criminal liability of the appellant- accused unlike the terms of compromise decree in the aforesaid two cases. There is no acknowledgment on the part of the Bank of the exoneration of the criminal liability of the appellant- accused unlike the terms of compromise decree in the aforesaid two cases. In the totality of the facts stated above, if the High Court [Gopalkumar B. Nair v. CBI, 2013 SCC OnLine Ker 24129] has taken the view that the exclusion spelt out in Gian Singh [ (2012) 10 SCC 303 : (2012) 4 SCC (Civ) 1188 : (2013) 1 SCC (Cri) 160 : (2012) 2 SCC (L&S) 988] (para 61) applies to the present case and on that basis had come to the conclusion that the power under Section 482 CrPC should not be exercised to quash the criminal case against the accused, we cannot find any justification to interfere with the said decision.’ ” 11. After distinguishing many a decision, the Court relied upon CBI v. Jagjit Singh [ (2013) 10 SCC 686 : (2014) 1 SCC (Civ) 98 : (2014) 1 SCC (Cri) 29 : (2014) 2 SCC (L&S) 154] wherein the Court being moved by CBI had overturned the order of the High Court quashing the criminal proceeding and in that backdrop had taken note of the fact that the accused persons had dishonestly induced delivery of the property of the bank and had used forged documents as genuine. Thereafter, the Court proceeded to state that : (Vikram Anantrai Doshi case [ (2014) 15 SCC 29 : (2014) 10 Scale 690 ] , SCC p. 42, para 26) “26. … availing of money from a nationalised bank in the manner, as alleged by the investigating agency, vividly exposits fiscal impurity and, in a way, financial fraud. The modus operandi as narrated in the charge- sheet cannot be put in the compartment of an individual or personal wrong. It is a social wrong and it has immense societal impact. It is an accepted principle of handling of finance that whenever there is manipulation and cleverly conceived contrivance to avail of these kinds of benefits it cannot be regarded as a case having overwhelmingly and predominatingly civil character. The ultimate victim is the collective. It creates a hazard in the financial interest of the society. The gravity of the offence creates a dent in the economic spine of the nation. The cleverness which has been skilfully contrived, if the allegations are true, has a serious consequence. The ultimate victim is the collective. It creates a hazard in the financial interest of the society. The gravity of the offence creates a dent in the economic spine of the nation. The cleverness which has been skilfully contrived, if the allegations are true, has a serious consequence. A crime of this nature, in our view, would definitely fall in the category of offences which travel far ahead of personal or private wrong. It has the potentiality to usher in economic crisis. Its implications have its own seriousness, for it creates a concavity in the solemnity that is expected in financial transactions. It is not such a case where one can pay the amount and obtain a ‘no-dues certificate’ and enjoy the benefit of quashing of the criminal proceeding on the hypostasis that nothing more remains to be done. The collective interest of which the Court is the guardian cannot be a silent or a mute spectator to allow the proceedings to be withdrawn, or for that matter yield to the ingenuous dexterity of the accused persons to invoke the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution or under Section 482 of the Code and quash the proceeding. It is not legally permissible. The Court is expected to be on guard to these kinds of adroit moves. The High Court, we humbly remind, should have dealt with the matter keeping in mind that in these kinds of litigations the accused when perceives a tiny gleam of success, readily invokes the inherent jurisdiction for quashing of the criminal proceeding. The Court's principal duty, at that juncture, should be to scan the entire facts to find out the thrust of allegations and the crux of the settlement. It is the experience of the Judge that comes to his aid and the said experience should be used with care, caution, circumspection and courageous prudence.”” 8. The default in payment and subsequent payment of debt on orders of Debt Recovery Tribunal and settling of dispute with Bank have been held no ground to quash entire criminal proceedings against defaulters/loanees. Such offence in relation to banking activities have harmful effect on public and threaten well-being of society. The default in payment and subsequent payment of debt on orders of Debt Recovery Tribunal and settling of dispute with Bank have been held no ground to quash entire criminal proceedings against defaulters/loanees. Such offence in relation to banking activities have harmful effect on public and threaten well-being of society. Though the Bank seems to be the victim but in fact it is society in general, including customers of Bank who are the real sufferers and this has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Central Bureau of Investigation v. Jagjit Singh , reported in (2013) 10 SCC 686 . In that case, the High Court has quashed the proceeding and the CBI has moved before the Hon’ble Supreme Court and the Hon’ble Supreme Court has set-aside the order of the High Court and directed the trial court to proceed with the matter in accordance with law and to conclude the trial expeditiously. 9. In light of the above facts, reasons and analysis, no relief can be extended to the petitioner as there is serious allegation of fraud with the Bank and, as such, this quashing petition is, hereby, dismissed.