Delhi High Court
Subodh Gupta & Ors. vs Cbi on 7 April, 2015
Author: Sunil Gaur
I-23 & 22
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Decision: April 07, 2015
+ CRL.M.C. 1322/2015 & Crl. M.A.Nos.4857-4858/2015
SUBODH GUPTA & ORS. ..... Petitioners
Through: Mr. Narinder Rai, Senior Advocate
with Ms. Manita Verma, Advocate
versus
C.B.I. ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. Narender Mann, Special
Public Prosecutor with Mr. Manoj
Pant & Ms. Uttkarsha Kohli,
Advocates
+ CRL.M.C. 1321/2015 & Crl. M.A.Nos.4855-4856/2015
SUBODH GUPTA & ORS. ..... Petitioners
Through: Mr. Narinder Rai, Senior Advocate
with Ms. Manita Verma, Advocate
versus
C.B.I. ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. Narender Mann, Special
Public Prosecutor with Mr. Manoj
Pant & Ms. Uttkarsha Kohli,
Advocates
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR
JUDGMENT
% (ORAL)
Vide impugned order of 27th February, 2015, petitioners have been
Crl.M.C.No.1322/2015 Page 1
Crl.M.C.No.1321/2015
called upon to face trial for the offences under Sections
409/420/467/468/471/477A/201 read with Section 120B of the IPC and
Section 13(2) read with Section 13 (1) (c ) & (d) of the Prevention of
Corruption Act, 1988 in CC No.132/01, titled as C.B.I. Vs. Deepak
Kumar Nayyar & ors.
Since the above captioned two petitions arise out of CC No.132/01,
titled as C.B.I. Vs. Deepak Kumar Nayyar & ors., therefore, with the
consent of learned counsel for the parties, both these petitions were heard
together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.
In the above captioned first petition [Crl.M.C.No.1322/2015],
impugned order of 27th February, 2015 is assailed on the ground that
petitioners are not public servants and their prosecution along with co-
accused with the aid of Section 120-B of the IPC is unjustified in view of
the fact that the allegations against the petitioners of misappropriation of
the money due to the complainant-bank stands settled between the parties
and in terms of settlement, the suit filed by the complainant-bank against
the petitioners stands withdrawn.
To submit so, attention of this Court is drawn by learned senior
counsel for petitioners to order of 15th February, 2005 in CS(OS)
No.2664/2000 (Annexure P-14). Thus, it is submitted on behalf of
petitioners that continuance of proceedings against petitioners would be
an exercise in futility and so, the impugned order deserves to be quashed.
Reliance was placed by learned senior counsel for petitioners upon
decision in Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab (2014) 6 SCC 466 in
support of above contentions.
In the above captioned second petition [Crl.M.C.No.1321/2015],
Crl.M.C.No.1322/2015 Page 2
Crl.M.C.No.1321/2015
petitioners are aggrieved by impugned order of 27 th February, 2015 vide
which petitioners' application raising the bar of territorial jurisdiction
stands dismissed. It is the case of petitioners that the alleged fraudulent
loan transaction took place at Agra, Uttar Pradesh and so, petitioners are
liable to be tried by a notified court at Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh and not
in Delhi.
According to learned senior counsel for petitioners, the entire
transaction took place at Agra, Uttar Pradesh and the drafts were issued at
Agra and the alleged offence was purportedly committed at Agra, Uttar
Pradesh. It was pointed out that utilization of funds in question is not the
subject matter of investigation and since the substantial cause to
prosecute petitioners takes place at Agra, therefore, Delhi courts have no
jurisdiction to try petitioners for the offences in question. Thus, it was
submitted that the impugned order is unsustainable and deserves to be set
aside.
At the hearing, learned Special Public Prosecutor for respondent-
CBI supported the impugned order and submitted that mere payment of
outstanding dues under the one time settlement with the complainant-
bank does not wash away the criminality. The prayer made in the above
captioned first petition [Crl.M.C.No.1322/2014] was vehemently opposed
by learned Special Public Prosecutor for respondent-CBI by submitting
that prima facie case is made out against petitioners and so, the first
petition ought to be dismissed.
With regard to prayer made in the above captioned second petition
[Crl.M.C.No.1321/2015], learned Special Public Prosecutor for
respondent-CBI submitted that the forged drafts were presented in Delhi
Crl.M.C.No.1322/2015 Page 3
Crl.M.C.No.1321/2015
and petitioners are the beneficiaries and the cheated amount was
withdrawn in Delhi and because the substantial cause of action arose
within the jurisdiction of Delhi courts, thus, there is no infirmity in the
impugned order.
Upon hearing and on perusal of the impugned order, material on
record and the decision cited, I find that the complainant-bank is not a
party to the above captioned first petition [Crl.M.C.No.1322/2015] and
stand of complainant-bank in respect of continuance of these proceedings
is not forthcoming. Otherwise also, impugned order deals with the role
played by petitioners and their co-accused and highlights the conspiracy
angle as well. Merely because outstanding dues have been cleared, would
not justify quashing of the criminal proceedings. Apex Court in Narinder
Singh (supra), has reiterated that in serious offences, criminal prosecution
of such nature ought not be quashed. The pertinent observations of the
Apex Court in Narinder Singh (supra) are as under:-
"29.3. Such a power is not to be exercised in those
prosecutions which involve heinous and serious offences of
mental depravity or offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc.
Such offences are not private in nature and have a serious
impact on society. Similarly, for the offences alleged to have
been committed under special statute like the Prevention of
Corruption Act or the offences committed by public servants
while working in that capacity are not to be quashed merely on
the basis of compromise between the victim and the offender."
Apex Court in State of Maharashtra through CBI Vs. Vikram
Anantrail Doshi & ors. 2014 SCC OnLine SC 745 has reiterated that
Crl.M.C.No.1322/2015 Page 4
Crl.M.C.No.1321/2015
merely upon obtaining of a „no dues certificate‟ an accused cannot enjoy
the benefit of quashing of the criminal proceedings, as financial frauds
can seriously dent the economic spine of the country.
Applying the afore-noted dictum of the Apex Court in Narinder
Singh (supra) and State of Maharashtra through CBI (supra) to the facts
of the instant case [Crl.M.C.No.1322/2015], no case for quashing of the
impugned order or criminal proceedings qua petitioners is made out.
With regard to the above captioned second petition
[Crl.M.C.No.1321/2015], this Court finds that Section 178 of the Cr.P.C.
has been rightly invoked by the trial court, as the offence in question
originated in Agra, Uttar Pradesh but realization of the illegal proceeds
purportedly takes place in Delhi and so, it cannot be said that the Delhi
courts have no territorial jurisdiction to try petitioners for the offence in
question. In the considered opinion of this Court, there is no palpable
error in the impugned order and so this petition is accordingly dismissed.
The above captioned two petitions and applications are dismissed,
while refraining to comment upon the merits of the case.
(SUNIL GAUR)
JUDGE
APRIL 07, 2015
r
Crl.M.C.No.1322/2015 Page 5
Crl.M.C.No.1321/2015
