Tarina Sen vs Union Of India

2024 INSC 752 REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. ________OF 2024 [Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No.1415 of 2024]

TARINA SEN …APPELLANT(S)

VERSUS

UNION OF INDIA & ANR. …RESPONDENT(S)

WITH CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. ________OF 2024 [Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No.1416 of 2024]

JUDGMENT

B.R. GAVAI, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. The present appeals challenge the final orders dated 4th

July 2023 passed by the High Court of Orissa at Cuttack in

CRLMC No. 34 of 2022 and in CRLMC No. 33 of 2022, vide which

Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by Deepak Singh Date: 2024.10.03 12:33:30 IST Reason: 1 the petition filed by the present appellants for quashing of

criminal proceedings came to be disposed of by permitting the

appellants to urge all the pleas raised in the said petition before

the trial Court at the appropriate stage. The appellants had

approached the High Court under Section 482 of the Code of

Criminal Procedure, 1973 (“CrPC” for short) praying for quashing

of the criminal proceedings in T.R. No. 28 of 2002 pending in the

Court of Special Judge (CBI) Bhubaneswar (“trial Court” for

short).

3. Shorn of details, the case of the prosecution is as given

below.

3.1 On 14th October 2000, on the basis of information received

from a reliable source, the Inspector of Police CBI/SPE

Bhubaneswar registered a regular case under Section 154

of CrPC being Crime No. RCBHU 2000A0021 (“FIR” for

short) against five persons namely, Ajay Kumar Behera

(Accused No. 1), Surjit Sen (Accused No. 2), Kaushik Nath

Ojha (Accused No.3), Tarini Sen (Accused No. 4),

Shaileshree Sen (Accused No. 5) alleging commission of

2 offences punishable under Sections 120-B, 420, 468 and

471 of Indian Penal Code 1860 (“IPC” for short) & Sections

13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act

1988 (“PC Act” for short). The present appellants are

Accused No. 4 and 5.

3.2 It was alleged in the F.I.R. that Ajay Kumar Behera while

being posted as the Branch Manager in Allahabad Bank,

Temple Marg Branch, Bhubaneswar (“the Bank” for short)

during the year 1998-1999 entered into a criminal

conspiracy with the other accused persons. At that time,

Surjit Sen and Kaushik Nath Ojha were the Directors of

M/s Indo Global Projects Ltd., Bhubaneswar (“IGPL” for

short) and the appellants herein were Partners in M/s

Clarion Travels, Bhubaneswar (“Clarion Travels” for short).

3.3 It was also alleged in the F.I.R. that on 20th November 1998,

a loan application was submitted on behalf of Clarion

Travels for the purpose of securing funds to purchase new

cars. The loan application was signed by the present

appellants on behalf of Clarion Travels. Against the said

3 loan application, on 17th December 1998, Ajay Kumar

Behera sanctioned a loan of Rs. 8,40,000/- without keeping

any security or post-dated cheques. No repayment was ever

made, and Ajay Kumar Behera did not pursue the same.

3.4 It was also alleged in the F.I.R. that earlier in time, on 22nd

August 1998, a similar loan application was submitted on

behalf of IGPL for the same purpose of securing funds to

purchase new cars at a cost of Rs. 11,84,600/-. Against the

said loan application, on 24th August 1998, Ajay Kumar

Behera sanctioned the loan for the said amount. The money

was received by Accused No. 3 and 4, who were Directors of

IGPL. In furtherance of the loan application, the Accused

No. 3 and 4 had also deposited 36 post-dated cheques,

which when they were sent for clearing, at a later stage, by

the successor of Ajay Kumar Behera bounced.

3.5 It was also alleged in the F.I.R. that, the office address

disclosed by both IGPL and Clarion Travels was one and the

same, i.e., 168/169-A, Bapuji Nagar, Bhubaneswar. In case

of IGPL, it was also alleged that the firm Indo Global Motor

4 from where the cars were purportedly purchased by IGPL is

in fact shown as a unit of IGPL and that both of them share

one and the same address being 56-A, Mancheswar

Industrial Estate, Bhubaneswar. Similarly, in the case of

Clarion Travels, it was also alleged that the firm M/s

Kalinga Auto Centre Ltd. from where the cars were

purportedly purchased by Clarion Travels also has the

same address 56-A, Mancheswar Industrial Estate,

Bhubaneswar.

3.6 In such facts, the matter was taken up for investigation by

the Central Bureau of Investigation (“CBI” for short) and the

case was registered as T.R. No. 28 of 2002 in the Court of

Special Judge (CBI), Bhubneswar.

3.7 On 27th August 2002, the CBI filed the charge-sheet in the

trial Court against all the accused persons, including the

present appellants, for offences punishable under Sections

120B, 420, 468, 471 of IPC and Sections 13(2) read with

13(1)(d) of PC Act.

3.8 Vide order dated 2nd September 2002, the trial Court took

5 cognizance and issued summons to the accused persons.

3.9 The Bank also filed two Original Applications being O.A. No.

53 and 57 of 2004 before the Debt Recovery Tribunal,

Cuttack (“DRT” for short) for recovery of dues in respect of

the loans advanced to IGPL and Clarion Travels. In the

proceedings before the DRT, IGPL and Clarion Travels

reached a One-Time-Settlement (“OTS” for short) with the

Bank, which was accepted, and the loan account was

declared as being closed vide letter dated 31st January

2011. In view of the OTS, the recovery proceedings pending

before the DRT were disposed of as a full and final payment

of the dues of the Bank vide orders dated 3rd May 2011.

3.10 Having settled the matter thus, the present appellants filed

separate applications under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. before

the High Court of Orissa seeking quashing of all the

proceedings pending before the trial Court in the case

registered as T.R. No. 28 of 2002. The High Court, vide the

orders impugned in the present appeals disposed of the

applications under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. by permitting the

6 appellants herein to urge all the pleas raised in their

application before the trial Court at the appropriate stage.

Being aggrieved thereby, the present appeal arises.

4. We have heard Shri Dama Seshadri Naidu, learned Senior

Counsel for the appellants and Shri Vikramjeet Banerjee learned

Additional Solicitor General (“ASG” for short) appearing for the

common respondent No.1-Union of India and Mr. Brijesh Kumar

Tamber, learned counsel for common respondent No.2.

5. Shri Naidu submits that the appellants before this Court

had no active role to play. It is submitted that the Appellant in

Criminal Appeal arising out of Special Leave Petition (Criminal)

No. 1415 of 2024 (Accused No.4) and the Appellant in Criminal

Appeal arising out of Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 1416

of 2024 (Accused No.5) are women. Accused No. 4 is the wife of

Surojit Sen, who was Accused No.2. Accused No. 5 is the wife of

the brother of the Accused No. 2. Both the appellants had no

active role to play and have been roped in as they are related to

the Accused No.2.

6. Shri Naidu further submits that in the proceedings before

7 the DRT, the firm run by the appellants reached to an amicable

settlement with the Bank, which was accepted, and the entire

debt was discharged on 31st January 2011. An amount of

Rs.7,50,000/- was deposited with the Bank as a full and final

settlement of the Bank’s dues.

7. It is further submitted that OA before the DRT was disposed

of on 3rd May 2011 in light of the settlement and, therefore, the

continuance of the proceedings against the appellants would be

an exercise in futility.

8. Shri Naidu in support of his submissions relied on the

following judgments of this Court in the cases of:

(i) Central Bureau of Investigation, SPE, SIU (X), New

Delhi v. Duncans Agro Industries Ltd., Calcutta1;

(ii) Nikhil Merchant v. Central Bureau of Investigation

and another2;

(iii) Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and another3;

(iv) Central Bureau of Investigation, ACB, Mumbai v.

1 (1996) 5 SCC 591 2 (2008) 9 SCC 677 3 (2012) 10 SCC 303

8 Narendra Lal Jain and others4;

(v) Narinder Singh and others v. State of Punjab and

another5;

(vi) Gold Quest International Private Limited v. State of

Tamil Nadu and others6; and

(vii) Central Bureau of Investigation v. Sadhu Ram

Singla and others7.

9. Mr. Brijesh Kumar Tamber, learned counsel for the

respondent No.2 Bank confirms the fact regarding the settlement

entered into between the Bank and the borrowers.

10. Shri Vikramjeet Banerjee, learned ASG, appearing on behalf

of the CBI, however, submits that merely because the matter is

settled between the Bank and the borrowers, it does not absolve

the accused persons of their criminal liability. It is submitted

that the learned Chief Justice of the High Court has rightly, upon

consideration of the legal position, dismissed the petition under

Section 482 of the CrPC. The learned ASG, therefore, prays for

4 (2014) 5 SCC 364 5 (2014) 6 SCC 466 6 (2014) 15 SCC 235 7 (2017) 5 SCC 350

9 dismissal of the present appeals.

11. The facts in the present case are not in dispute. It is not

disputed that the matter has been compromised between the

borrowers and the Bank. It has also not been in dispute that,

upon payment of the amount under the OTS, the loan account of

the borrower has been closed.

12. Therefore, the only question would be, as to whether the

continuation of the criminal proceedings against the present

appellants would be justified or not.

13. At the outset, we may state that we are only considering the

cases of two women i.e. Accused Nos. 4 and 5, wherein Accused

No.4 is the wife of Accused No.2. It is also not in dispute that

the original Accused Nos. 2 and 3 have since died.

14. By a separate judgment of the even date in Criminal Appeal

arising out of Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No.4353 of 2018

wherein similar facts arose for consideration, we have held that

when the matter has been compromised between the borrower

and Bank, the continuation of the criminal proceedings would

not be justifiable.

10

15. Relying on the earlier judgments of this Court, we have held

that in the matters arising out of commercial, financial,

mercantile, civil, partnership or such like transactions or the

offences arising out of matrimony relating to dowry, etc. or family

disputes where the wrong is basically private or personal in

nature and the parties have resolved their entire dispute, the

High Court should exercise its powers under Section 482 CrPC

for giving an end to the criminal proceedings. We have held that

the possibility of conviction in such cases is remote and bleak

and as such, the continuation of the criminal proceedings would

put the accused to great oppression and prejudice.

16. We find that for the aforesaid reasons the present appeals

also deserve to be allowed.

17. In the result, we pass the following order.

(i) Criminal Appeal arising out of Special Leave Petition

(Criminal) No.1415 of 2024 is allowed.

(ii) The impugned order dated 4th July 2023 passed by the

High Court of Orissa at Cuttack in CRLMC No.34 of

2022 is quashed and set aside.

11

(iii) Criminal Appeal arising out of Special Leave Petition

(Criminal) No.1416 of 2024 is allowed.

(iv) The impugned order dated 4th July 2023 passed by the

High Court of Orissa at Cuttack in CRLMC No.33 of

2022 is quashed and set aside

(v) The criminal proceedings against the appellants in

T.R. No. 28 of 2002 pending in the Court of Special

Judge (CBI) Bhubaneswar is also quashed and set

aside.

..............................J (B.R. GAVAI)

...........................................J (K.V. VISWANATHAN) NEW DELHI;

OCTOBER 03, 2024.

12