CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATIONversusMANINDER SINGH

                   [2015] 10 S.C.R. 277


         CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION                         A
                              v.
                    MANINDER SINGH
            (Criminal Appeal No. 1496of2009)
                     AUGUST 28, 2015                             B

        [DIPAK MISRA AND R. BANUMATHI, JJ.]
     Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: s.482- Quashing of
proceedings - A/legation against the respondent that he
availed bank credit facilities with the help of forged           C
documents in connivance with the bank manager- Charge-
sheet - High court quashed the criminal proceedings qua
the respondent on the ground that the respondent had settled
the matter with the bank - On appeal, held: In economic
                                                                 0
offences, Court must not only keep in view that money has
been paid to the bank which has been defrauded but also
consider consequence to the society at large - High Court
while exercising its inherent power ignored all the facts viz.
the impact of the offence, the use of the State machinery to     E
keep the matter pending for so many years coupled with the
fraudulent conduct of the respondent - To quash the
proceeding merely on the ground that the accused has
settled the amount with the bank would be a misplaced
sympathy - Order of High Court set aside and trial court         F
directed to proceed with the matter- Penal Code, 1860- ss.
420, 467, 468 and 471 rlw s. 120-8- Economic offences.

    Allowing the appeal, the Court

     HELD: 1. The allegation against the respondent is G
'forgery' for the purpose of cheating and use of forged
documents as genuine in order to embezzle the public
money. After facing such serious charges of forgery, the

              /             277                                  H
278       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                [2015) 10 S.C.R.

A respondent wants the proceedings to be quashed on
  account of settlement with the bank. The development
  in means of communication, science & technology etc.
  have led to an enormous increase in economic crimes
  viz. phishing, ATM frauds etc. which are being committed
B by intelligent but devious individuals involving huge
  sums of public or government money. These are actually
  public wrongs or crimes committed against society and
  the gravity and magnitude attached to these offences is
  concentrated at public at large. [Para 10] [284-D-F]
c
        2. The inherent power of the High Court under
   Section 482 Cr.P.C. should be sparingly used. Only when
   the Court comes to the conclusion that there would be
   manifest injustice or there would be abuse of the process
 D of the Court if such power is not exercised, Court would
   quash the proceedings. It is not a case of simple assault
   or a theft of a trivial amount; but the offence in the instant
   case is a well planned and was committed with a
   deliberate design with an eye of personal profit
 E regardless of consequence to the society at large. If
   the prosecution against the economic offenders are not
   allowed to continue, the entire community is aggrieved.
   [Para 11] [284-G-H; 285-A-B]

 F     3. In this case, the High Court while exercising its
  inherent power ignored all the facts viz. the impact of
  the offence, the use of the State machinery to keep the
  matter pending for so many years coupled with the
  fraudulent conduct of the respondent. Considering the
G facts and circumstances of the case at hand in the light
  of the decision in VikramAnantrai Doshi's case, the order
  of the High Court cannot be sustained. [Para 13] [287-C]

          Nikhil Merchant vs. CBI & Anr. (2008) 9 SCC 677:
 H        2008 (12) SCR 236 - distinguished.
 CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION v. MANINDER 279
                   SINGH

     State of Maharashtra through CBI vs. Vikram              A
     Anantrai Doshi and Ors. 2014 (10) SCALE 690:
     2014 (7) SCR 743 - relied on.

      Rumi Dhar (Smt.) vs. State of West Bengal & Anr.
      (2009) 6 sec     364: 2009 (5) SCR 553; Gian            s
    . Singh vs. State of Punjab And Anr. (2012) 10 SCC
      303: 2012 (8) SCR 753; Shiji@ Pappu & Ors.
      vs. Radhika &Anr. (2011) 10 SCC 705: 2011 (13)
      SCR 135 - referred to.
                                                              c
                  Case Law Reference

   2008 (12) SCR     236    distinguished.       Para 3, 9

   2009 (5) SCR     553      referred to.        Para4
                                                              D
   2014 (7)   SCR    743     relied on.          Para4

   2012 (8) SCR     753      referred to.        Para 5

   2011 (13) SCR     135     referred to.        Para5
                                                              E
    CRIMINALAPPELLATE JURISDICTION: CriminalAppeal
No. 1496 of 2009.

    From the Judgment and Order dated 10.02.2009 of the
High Court of Delhi, at New Delhi in Crl. MC. 2083 of 2006.   F

    Pinky Anand, ASG, Rana Mukherjee, Kumar Parimal, B.V.
Bairam Das, Kritika Sachdeva, B. Krishna Prasad for the
Appellant.

   K.K. Menon, Tarunvir Singh Khehar, Guneet Khehar,          G
Shankar Divate for the Respondent.

    The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

    R. BANUMATHI, J. 1. This appeal is preferred              H
280          SUPREME COURT REPORTS                   [2015) 10 S.C.R.


A challenging the order of the High Court of Delhi in Crl. M.C.
  No.2083 of2006 dated 10.02.2009, in and by which, the High
  Court exercising its inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
  quashed the criminal proceedings in RC No.3 of 1987 under
  Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 IPC read with Section 120-B
B IPC and all proceedings conseque"!t thereto qua the
  respondent.

           2. Brief facts which led to the filing of this criminal appeal
      are as under:- The complainant-Chief Vigilance Officer of the
C     New Bank of India (presently 'Punjab National Bank' for short
      'PNB') lodged the complaint alleging that two persons namely
      Suresh Kumar Puri and Maninder Singh introduced
      themselves as proprietors of M/s Fashion India and. Mis Ranney
      Exports respectively and opened their current accounts with
D     their branch at Miller Ganj in Ludhiana on 08.11.1986. One
      Manger namely A.K. Satija of IBD Cell of the New Bank of
      India at Ludhiana allowed advance amount worth Rs.5.31 lakhs
      each to these two firms on production of Bill of Lading, GR
      form and other bills and those foreign bills purchased by the
E     Bank on 27.11.1986 returned unpaid. During the enquiry made
      by the bank, Bill of Lading presented by the proprietors of the
      abovesaid two firms were found forged. Manager-AK. Satija
      helped Maninder Singh to avail advance upto Rs.10.62 lakhs
F     by opening two different accounts just to ensure that the
      pecuniary limits allowed may fall under his power; however
      according to prosecution nature of transactions reveal that
      parties were one and the same. Respondent and other co-
      accused thus entered into a criminal conspiracy during the
G     period November-December 1986, with intention to cheat New
      Bank of India (PNB) to the tune of Rs. i 0.62 lakhs. On the
      basis of the above complaint, case was registered under
      Section 120-B IPC read with Section 420 IPC and Section
      5(2) read with Section 5( 1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act,
H     1947 and further substantive offences under Sections 420,
 CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION v. MANINDER 281
           SINGH [R. BANUMATHI, J.]

467, 468 and 471 IPC & Section 5 (2) read with Section 5 (1) A
of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 in Crime No.RC.3/87-
SIU(X)/CBl/SPE dated 28.08.1987. After completion of the
investigation, a chargesheet was filed on 22.12.1990 in the
Court of Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Tis Hazari Court, Delhi
against the accused persons collectively for the offences under B
Section 120-B IPC read with Section 420 IPC and substantive
offences under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 IPC.

     3. Noticeably, on 01.02.1995 i.e. after four years the
accused-respondent Maninder Singh was arrested by CBI from C
IGI Airport and the CMM vide order dated 16.09.1995 framed
charges against accused respondent Maninder Singh and
other accused. In the trial, thirty nine prosecution witnesses
were examined. However on 29.01.2005, Maninder Singh
arrived at a settlement with the New Bank of India, Ludhiana D
and on 29.11.2005, the respondent-accused filed an
application before the CMM for pleading guilty for the offences
alleged, but on the date of hearing i.e. 08.12.2005, the accused
respondent Maninder Singh did not appear in the court and
his advocate withdrew the aforesaid application. Respondent E
herein moved a Crl. Misc. Petition bearing No.2083 of 2006
under Section 482 Cr. P.C. for quashing of the FIR against
him on the ground that a settlement is arrived between the
parties and amounts are repaid to bank. The High Court placing F
reliance on Nik.'1il Merchant vs. CBI & Anr., (2008) 9 SCC
677, vide impugned order dated 10.02.2009 allowed the
petition and thereby directed that criminal proceedings in RC
No.3 of 1987 and all consequential proceedings thereto
against the respondent shall stand quashed. The appellant- G
CBI herein assails the correctness of the order passed by the
High Court.

    4. Ms. Pinki Anand, learned Additional Solicitor General
contended that Nikhi Marchant case is not an authority on the   H
question involved and in Rumi Dhar (Smt.) vs. State of West
282         SUPREME COURT REPORTS              ·   [2015] 10 S.C.R.


A Bengal & Anr., (2009) 6 SCC 364, this Court raised doubts
  as to the correctness of the judgment passed in Nikhil
  Merchant's case. It was submitted that the facts of the present
  case are totally different and in this case thirty nine prosecution
  witnesses were already examined and substantial progress
B hasbeei'fm'ade in the criminal case and while so, High Court
  was not right in quashing the criminal proceedings qua the
  respondent. Learned Additional Solicitor General has drawn
  our attention to State of Maharashtra through CBI vs. Vikram
  Anantrai Doshi and Ors., 2014 (10) SCALE 690 and submitted
C that this Court has distinguished Nikhil Merchant's case and
  held that availing loan from the bank by producing forged
  documents has immense societal impact and the High Court
  ignoring the facts and circumstances of the present case was
  not justified in quashing the criminal proceedings qua the
0
  respondent.

         5. Learned Senior Counsel for the respondent Mr. K.K.
   Menon submitted that availing facilities from the bank is purely
   of civil dispute which are personal in nature and therefore High
 E Court was totally justified in quashing the proceedings in view
   of the judgment rendered in Nikhil Merchant's case. It was
   further submitted that the judgment rendered in Nikhil
   Merchant's case was upheld in Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab
 F And Anr., (2012) 10 SCC 303; Shiji@ Pappu & Ors. vs.
   Radhika & Anr., (2011) 10 SCC 705 and other judgments.

          6. We have carefully considered the rival contentions
      advanced by the parties and perused the material on record.

G       7. In the case at hand, respondent and one Suresh Kumar
  Puri introducing themselves as proprietors 'of M/s Renney
  Exports and Mis Fashion India opened current accounts
  Nos.4443 & 4441 on 08.11.1986 with New Bank of India (PNB)
  and by forged documents they had availed various facilities
H viz.:- (i) Anticipated case incentive advance Rs.50,000/- to
 CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION v. MANIN DER 283
           SINGH [R. BANUMATHI, J.]

each of the firms; (ii) F.B.P. against order documents (the bills A
of ladings now turned out to be forged) Rs.3,05,01)0/- each;
(iii) F.B.P. against order documents (the bills of ladings now
turned out to be forged) additional funds released Rs.22,000/
- each; (iv) P.C.L. against orders (Packing Credit Loans)
Rs.1,50,000/- each and interest Rs.4,000/-to each of the firms. B
In the charges, it is further alleged that AK. Satija, the then
Manager, IBD Cell, New Bank of India, Ludhiana has
sanctioned various credit facilities to respondent and Suresh
Kumar Puri viz.: (i) Packing Credit against confirmed orders;
(ii) Advance against anticipated cash incentive/duty draw C
back; (iii) Advance against cash incentive and duty draw back
and (iv) Advance against foreign bill purchase. Chargesheet
refers to various transactions by which bank amounts were
credited to the accounts of the said firms based on forged
                                                                  0
documents.

       8. Accused-respondent Maninder Singh and his brother
Arvinder Singh did not cooperate with the investigating agency
and were absconding and declared proclaimed offenders by
CMM, Tis Hazari, Delhi vide order dated 03.10.1989. In the         E
trial, thirty nine witnesses were examined and thus substantial
progress was made. In fact, on 29.11.2005, respondent-
accused filed an application before the trial court for pleading
guilty; but the accused did not appear in the court and his        F
advocate withdrew the aforesaid application.

     9. Placing reliance upon Nikhil Merchant's case, the High
Court quashed the criminal proceedings qua the respondent
on the ground that the respondent has settled the matter with
the bank. In Nikhil Merchant's case the dispute between the G
company and the bank which was set at rest on the basis of
compromise arrived at by them and dues of the bank have
been cleared. In Nikhil Merchant's case certain documents
were alleged to have been forged by the respondent thereon H
in order to avail credit facilities beyond the limit to which the
284        SUPREME COURT REPORTS                [2015] 10 S.C.R.


A company was entitled.The case at hand is clearly
  distinguishable on facts. The chargesheet referred to number
  of transactions based on such forged documents bank money
  was credited to the accounts of firms of the respondent. For
  instance, respondent Maninder Singh and Suresh Kumar Puri
B are said to have submitted the forged documents of shipment
  for bill purchased on 27.11.1986. These documents included
  Bill of Lading and invoices which were found forged and
  according to the prosecution no consignment was sent by the
  respondent to foreign companies. It is further alleged that the
C Bill of Lading and G.R. Form and Shipping Bill also contained
  forged signatures of customs officers.

       10. The allegation against the respondent is 'forgery' for
   the purpose of cheating and use of forged documents as
 D genuine in order to embezzle the public money. After facing
   such serious charges of forgery, the respondent wants the
   proceedings to be quashed on account of settlement with the
   bank. The development in means of communication, science
   & technology etc. have led to an enormous increase in
 E economic crimes viz. phishing, ATM frauds etc. which are being
   committed by intelligent but devious individuals involving huge
   sums of public or government money. These are actually public
   wrongs or crimes committed against society and the gravity
 F and magnitude attached to these offences is concentrated at
   public at large.

        11. The inherent power of the High Court under Section
  482 Cr.P.C. should be sparingly used. Only when the Court
G comes to the conclusion that there would be manifest injustice
  or there would be abuse of the process of the Court if such
  power is not exercised, Court would quash the proceedings.
  In economic offences Court must not only keep in view that
  money has been paid to the bank which has been defrauded
H but also the society at large. It is not a case of simple assault
  or a theft of a trivial amount; but the offence with which we are
 CENT~AL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION v. MANINDER                      285
                 SINGH [R. BANUMATHI, J.]

concerned is a well planned and was committed with a A
deliberate design with an eye of personal profit regardless of
consequence to the society at large. To quash the proceeding
merely on the ground that the accused has settled the amount
with the bank would be a misplaced sympathy. If the
prosecution against the economic offenders are not allowed B
to continue, the entire community is aggrieved.

     12. In recent decision in Vikram Anantrai Doshi (supra),
this Court distinguished Nikhil Merchant's case and Narendra
Lal Jain's case where the compromise was a part of the decree C
of the court and by which the parties withdrew all allegations
against each other. After referring to various case laws under
subject in Vikram Anantrai Ooshi's case, this Court observed
that cheating by bank exposits fiscal impurity and such financial
fraud is an offence against society at large in para (23), this D
Court held as under:-

     "23 .... Be it stated, that availing of money from a
     nationalized bank in the manner, as alleged by the
     investigating agency, vividly exposits fiscal impurity and, E
     in a way, financial fraud. The modus operandi as
     narrated in the chargesheet 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 F
     when~yerthere is manipulation and cleverly conceived
     contrivance to avail of these kind of benefits it cannot be
     regarded as a case having overwhelmingly and
     predominantingly of civil character. The ultimate victim
     is the collective. It creates a hazard in the financial interest G
     of the society. The gravity of the offence creates a dent
     in the economic spine of the nation. The cleverness
     which has been skillfully contrived, ifthe allegations are
     true, has a serious consequence. A crime of this nature, H
     in our view, would definitely fall in the category of offences
286   SUPREME COURT REPORTS                    [2015) 105.C.R.


A     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
 B    amount and obtain a "no due certificate" and enjoy the
      benefit of quashing of the criminal proceedings 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
 c    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
 D
      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 kind of
      litigations the accused when perceives a tiny gleam of
 E    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 comes to
 F    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 scrutinize the entire conspectus of facts
      in proper perspective and quashed the criminal
 G    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
 H
  CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION v. MANINDER 287
            SINGH [R. BANUMATHI, J.]

      in our view would be difficult to record. Be that as it may, A
      the fact remains that tlie 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 of the
      High Court is wholly indefensible".                          B

    13. In this case, the High Court while exercising its inherent
power ignored all the facts viz. the impact of the offence, the
use of the State machinery to keep the matter pending for so
many years coupled with the fraudulent conduct of the C
respondent. Considering the facts and circumstances of the
case at hand in the light of the decision in Vikram Anantrai
Doshi's case, the order of the High Court cannot be sustained.

      14. The appeal is allowed and the order passed by the           o
High Court is set aside and the trial court is directed to proceed
with the matter expeditiously in accordance with law. We make
it clear that we have not expressed any opinion on the merits
of the matter.
                                                                      E
Devika Gujral                                       Appeal allowed.