MANINDER SINGH Vs. C.B.I
LAWS(DLH)-2009-2-167
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Decided on February 10,2009

MANINDER SINGH Appellant
VERSUS
C.B.I Respondents




JUDGEMENT

S.MURALIDHAR,J. - (1.)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.
(2.)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.
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.

(3.)THE order dated 4th 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 15th 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 22nd 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.'



Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.