Gurram Sujatha vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh
2022 Latest Caselaw 9647 AP

           HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO

                         Crl.P.No.2224 of 2022

ORDER:

The petitioners are accused Nos.1 to 5 in C.C.No.157 of 2019 on

the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Parchur, Prakasam District,

for the offences punishable under Sections 407, 409 and 420 IPC.

2. The case, against the petitioners, in the complaint is that the

petitioners, who had established a cold storage in the name of M/s. Sri

Chandana Cold Storage Private Limited, had colluded with about 137

farmers in obtaining loans from the State Bank of India, Inkollu, showing

various agricultural produce being available in the cold storage as security

for the loans obtained by the farmers. The farmers committed default in

repayment of the loan amount. It was found that the stock of the

agriculture produce was not available, in the cold storage, when the bank

sought production of the agricultural produce pledged with the bank. On

this basis, complaints were filed before the police. After investigation, a

charge sheet had been filed and the same was taken cognizance by the

Judicial First Class Magistrate, Parchur, Prakasam District, in C.C.No.157 of

2019. During the pendency of these proceedings, the farmers and the

petitioners entered into a One Time Settlement Scheme with the bank and

closed all the loan accounts.

3. The petitioners have now approached this Court to quash

C.C.No.157 of 2019 on the ground that the de facto complainant bank and 2 RRR,J Crl.P.No.2224 of 2022

the petitioners have arrived at a compromise which was recorded as a

One Time Settlement Scheme, and as such, continuation of the

proceedings of the Court would be an exercise in futility.

4. Smt. V. Dyumani, learned counsel for the petitioners relied

upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Central Bureau of

Investigation vs. Sadhu Ram Singla and Ors.,1.

5. Sri Satyanarayana Nimmala, learned counsel appearing for

the de facto complainant-bank submits that the said judgment is not

applicable in the present case. He submits that the One Time Settlement

Scheme, which was accepted by the de facto complainant bank, was only

in relation to repayment of the dues of the Bank and the said

compromise/consent of One Time Settlement Scheme cannot, in any

manner, be treated as a compromise in the criminal case. He would

submit that the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court relates to a case

where both the accused and the complainant had agreed to close the

criminal case.

6. Sri Satyanarayana Nimmala would also take this Court

through the material filed before this Court to contend that it was the

petitioners who had misused the loans obtained in the names of the

farmers and that the farmers in fact had no role in the matter.

    AIR 2017 SC 1312 = 2017 (1) ALD (Crl.) 981
                                         3                              RRR,J
                                                       Crl.P.No.2224 of 2022

7. A perusal of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in

Central Bureau of Investigation vs. Sadhu Ram Singla and Ors.,

would show that the Hon'ble Supreme Court was considering a situation

where both the complainant as well as the accused had arrived at an

amicable arrangement which included closure of criminal proceedings. In

such a situation, the Hon'ble Supreme Court had taken the view that

continuation of the proceedings would be a futile exercise.

8. In the present case, there is no such compromise. The de

facto complainant-bank vehemently opposes any such closure of the case

on the basis of the compromise that is said to have been affected in the

One Time Settlement Scheme. Consequently, the said judgment relied

upon by the learned counsel for the petitioners would not be applicable to

the facts of this case.

9. Sri Satyanarayana Nimmala, on the other hand relied upon

the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Madhya

Pradesh vs. Laxmi Narayan and Ors.,2 and State of Maharashtra

Through Centralf Bureau of Investigation vs. Vikram Anantrai

Doshi and Ors.3.

10. He would place particular reliance on the judgment of the

Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Maharashtra Through Central

(2019) 5 SCC 688

(2014) 15 SCC 29 4 RRR,J Crl.P.No.2224 of 2022

Bureau of Investigation vs. Vikram Anantrai Doshi and Ors., which

reads as follows:

26. We are in respectful agreement with the aforesaid view. Be it stated, that 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. 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 5 RRR,J Crl.P.No.2224 of 2022

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. As we find in the case at hand the learned Single Judge has not taken pains to scrutinise the entire conspectus of facts in proper perspective and quashed the criminal proceeding. The said quashment neither helps to secure the ends of justice nor does it prevent the abuse of the process of the court nor can it be also said that as there is a settlement no evidence will come on record and there will be remote chance of conviction. Such a finding in our view would be difficult to record. Be that as it may, the fact remains that the social interest would be on peril and the prosecuting agency, in these circumstances, cannot be treated as an alien to the whole case. Ergo, we have no other option but to hold that the order [Vikram Anantrai Doshi v. State of Maharashtra, Criminal Application No. 2239 of 2009, order dated 22-4-2010 (Bom)] of the High Court is wholly indefensible.

11. Sri Satyanarayana Nimmala would also contend that on the

basis of the above passage there can be no quashing of the case even in

the event of settlement between the complainant and the accused.

                                     6                              RRR,J
                                                   Crl.P.No.2224 of 2022

12. In the circumstances, the contention of the petitioner that

C.C.No.157 of 2019 should be quashed on the basis of the One Time

Settlement Scheme, cannot be accepted. Consequently, this criminal

petition is dismissed.

As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand

closed.

_________________________ R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO, J.

____ December, 2022 Js.

                          7                            RRR,J
                                       Crl.P.No.2224 of 2022


      HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO




               Crl.P.No.2224 of 2022




               ____ December, 2022
Js.