Jharkhand High Court
Amit Kumar Kejriwal @ Amit Kejriwal vs Union Of India Through C.B.I. ... ... on 14 November, 2025
Author: Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi
Bench: Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi
( 2025:JHHC:34096 )
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr.M.P. No. 3091 of 2025
Amit Kumar Kejriwal @ Amit Kejriwal, aged about 49 years, S/o Late Ashok
Kejriwal, resident of 28 New Road, 5th Floor Ganesh Court, Kolkata, P.O. Alipur,
P.S. Alipur, District- Kolkata, West Bengal ... Petitioner
-Versus-
Union of India through C.B.I. ... Opposite Party
-----
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI
-----
For the Petitioner : Mr. Indrajit Sinha, Advocate (Through VC)
Mr. Rishav Kumar, Advocate
For the CBI : Mr. Prashant Pallav, A.S.G.I.
Mr. Bajrang Kumar, A.C. to A.S.G.I.
-----
05/14.11.2025 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, 5th Floor, Nile Complex,
Kantatoli, Ranchi alleging therein that (1) M/s Rajeshwari Iron and Steel
( 2025:JHHC:34096 )
Company Private Limited, registered office at 71, Canning Street, 5th Floor,
Room No.512A, Kolkata, West Bengal, (2) Sumit Kejriwal, S/o Ashok Kumar
Kejriwal, Director having address at 28, New Road, Ganesh Court, 5th Floor,
Alipore, Kolkata-700027, (3) Smt. Aasha Kejriwal, W/o Ashok Kumar
Kejriwal, Director having address at 28, New Road, Ganesh Court, 5th 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, 5th 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. 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.
( 2025:JHHC:34096 )
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
( 2025:JHHC:34096 )
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.
( 2025:JHHC:34096 )
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. 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
( 2025:JHHC:34096 )
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. 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)
( 2025:JHHC:34096 )
"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. 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. A crime of this nature, in our
( 2025:JHHC:34096 )
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. 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
( 2025:JHHC:34096 )
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.
(Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.)
Dated: 14th November, 2025
Ajay/ A.F.R.
