S. Muralidhar, J.
Crl. M.C 2083 of 2006 and Crl. M.A No. 3348/2006 (stay)
2. This petition seeks the quashing of the criminal proceedings emanating from RC No. 3/1987 under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, read with 120B IPC including the charge sheet and all proceedings consequent thereto.
3. The aforementioned criminal case was got registered by the Central Bureau of Investigation (“CBI”) on 28th August 1987 on the written complaint of the Chief Vigilance Officer of the New Bank of India (presently ‘Punjab National Bank?). The allegation was that the Petitioner as proprietor of M/s. Rooney Exports, Agar Nagar, Ludhiana along with certain other co-accused obtained advances from the IBD cell of the New Bank of India in Ludhiana in November and December 1986 to the extent of Rs. 5.31 lakhs. It is stated that the advances were realized on the strength of certain bills which later on turned out to be forged. Cash incentive advance, which was usually allowed after the shipments were made, was allowed at the first instance though the borrowers including the Petitioner were not entitled for such advance. The Petitioner and the other co-accused were charged with entering into a criminal conspiracy to cheat the New Bank of India to the tune of Rs. 10.62 lakhs.
4. On the conclusion of the investigation, a charge sheet was filed in the trial court showing the Petitioner's name as an accused being sent up for trial. The report of the Forensic Science Laboratory (“FSL”) supported the case of the prosecution for the offence under Section 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC. Quashing of the criminal proceedings is sought on the ground that a settlement has been arrived at between the parties and amounts repaid to the Bank but the offences could not be compounded in view of the statutory bar.
5. The order dated 4 March 2008 passed by this Court records the submission of learned counsel for the Petitioner as follows:
“1. There are two main submissions urged by Mr. Manan, learned counsel for the Petitioner. The first is that in view of the payment of the sum alleged to have been defaulted having been made by the Petitioner to the complainant, the criminal proceedings should be quashed. He has relied upon a large number of judgments of the High Courts and the Supreme Court in support of this proposition. The second is that the charges were framed in this case on 15 September, 2005 and after that day the Petitioner has not contributed to even a single days's delay in the progress of the trial. He states that out of the 128 witnesses listed only 39 have been examined so far by the prosecution and that at this rate there is no possibility of the conclusion of trial even in next ten years.
2. Mr. Gulati learned counsel for the CBI pointed out that in the reply filed on 22nd August 2006, CBI has in para 4 indicated that it wishes to examine only 25 more witnesses after which it will close its evidence.
3. In order to ascertain what progress has been made in the trial since the CBI filed its reply on 22 August 2006, the trial court record would require to be examined. Mr. Gulati also states that in the meanwhile he will obtain instructions on how many more witnesses the prosecution wishes to examine.
4. List on 31st March, 2008. The trial court record be requisitioned immediately.”
6. At the subsequent hearing on 3rd April 2008 the following order was passed by this Court:
“Mr. D.S Yadav, Inspector with Banking Fraud Cell of the CBI is present in Court. On his instructions, Mr. Gulati, learned Senior Standing counsel for CBI informs the Court that CBI proposes to examine only 15 more witnesses in this case and that the CBI is amenable to any time bound directions for completion of the recording of the evidence by the end of this year. Mr. Manan, learned counsel for the Petitioner states notwithstanding the above statement he would nevertheless wish to await the judgment of this Court in a batch of cases where the first submission concerning the prayer for quashing on the ground that the moneys have been repaid is being considered. He accordingly requests for an adjournment till that judgment is delivered.
List on 9 May, 2008.
The trial court record be sent back immediately.”
7. In Devender Singh v. State 2008 (106) DRJ 139 this Court took the view that where there is an FSL report supporting the case of the prosecution for the offences of forgery, the criminal proceedings ought not to be quashed only because of a settlement arrived at between the parties. However subsequent to the said judgment the Supreme Court has in Nikhil Merchant v. CBI 2008 [4] JCC 2311 quashed a criminal case involving the offences under Section 120 B read with Sections 420, 468 and 471 IPC read with the provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. That case involved moneys owing to the Bank being repaid to it during the pendency of the criminal case. The Supreme Court quashed the criminal proceedings relying on the earlier judgments in CBI v. Duncans Agro Industries Ltd. (1996) 5 SCC 591, B.S Joshi v. State of Haryana (2003) 4 SCC 675 and State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335.
8. In the instant case by an order dated 13 September 2007 the Punjab National Bank (‘PNB’) was impleaded as a party Respondent No. 2. On 4 February 2009 an affidavit has been filed stating that the Petitioner had indeed adjusted his loan account with the PNB after paying the debts owing to the bank. The facts of the present case are therefore not different from the facts in Nikhil Merchant.
9. The prayer for quashing of the proceedings has been opposed by learned counsel for the CBI citing the conduct of the Petitioner in the present case in seeking several adjournments before the trial court on the ground that the quashing of the proceedings has been sought by filing the present petition in this Court. In the considered view of this Court in the light of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Nikhil Merchant, when the Bank admits that the Petitioner has settled its dues, the prayer of the Petitioner for quashing of the criminal proceedings, insofar as he is concerned, cannot be rejected.
10. Accordingly, it is directed that the criminal proceedings in RC No. 3/1987 under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, read with 120B IPC and all proceedings consequent thereto including the charge sheet will stand quashed in so far as the Petitioner is concerned. It is clarified that this order will not affect the continuation of the said criminal case against the other accused.
11. The petition is accordingly disposed of with no order as to costs. The application is disposed of.
12. Dasti to the parties.