TARINA SENversusUNION OF INDIA & ANR.

                [2024] 10 S.C.R. 417 : 2024 INSC 752

                              Tarina Sen
                                    v.
                          Union of India & Anr.
                    (Criminal Appeal No. 4114 of 2024)
                              03 October 2024
              [B.R. Gavai* and K.V. Viswanathan, JJ.]

                          Issue for Consideration
       Issue arose as to whether the continuation of the criminal
       proceedings against the appellants would be justified, when the
       matter has been compromised between the borrower and Bank.

                                 Headnotes†
       Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.482 – Exercise of power
       under – Criminal proceedings against the appellant u/ss.120-B,
       420, 468 and 471 IPC and s.13(2) r/w s.13(1)(d) of the 1988
       Act – Application u/s.482 CrPC for quashing of the criminal
       proceedings pending before the Special Judge – Disposed
       of, by the High Court by permitting the appellants to urge all
       the pleas raised in the application before the trial court at the
       appropriate stage – Correctness:
       Held: Matter has been compromised between the borrowers
       and the Bank and upon payment of the amount under the OTS,
       the loan account of the borrower has been closed, as such the
       continuation of the criminal proceedings not justifiable – In the
       matters arising out of commercial, financial, mercantile, civil,
       partnership or such like transactions or the offences arising out
       of matrimonial 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 u/s.482
       for giving an end to the criminal proceedings – 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 – Impugned orders passed by the
       High Court quashed and set aside – Criminal proceedings against
       the appellants pending before the Special Judge also quashed
       and set aside – Penal Code, 1860 – Prevention of Corruption Act,
       1988. [Paras 11, 14, 15, 17]
* Author
418                                                       [2024] 10 S.C.R.

                      Digital Supreme Court Reports


                              Case Law Cited
       Central Bureau of Investigation, SPE, SIU (X), New Delhi v.
       Duncans Agro Industries Ltd., Calcutta [1996] Supp. 3 SCR
       360 : (1996) 5 SCC 591; Nikhil Merchant v. Central Bureau of
       Investigation and Another [2008] 12 SCR 236 : (2008) 9 SCC
       677; Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and Another [2012] 8 SCR
       753 : (2012) 10 SCC 303; Central Bureau of Investigation,
       ACB, Mumbai v. Narendra Lal Jain and Others [2014] 3 SCR
       444 : (2014) 5 SCC 364; Narinder Singh and Others v. State
       of Punjab and Another [2014] 4 SCR 1012 : (2014) 6 SCC
       466; Gold Quest International Private Limited v. State of Tamil
       Nadu and Others [2014] 7 SCR 677 : (2014) 15 SCC 235;
       Central Bureau of Investigation v. Sadhu Ram Singla and Others
       [2017] 1 SCR 907 : (2017) 5 SCC 350 – referred to.

                                List of Acts

       Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Penal Code, 1860; Prevention
       of Corruption Act, 1988.

                             List of Keywords

       Continuation of criminal proceedings; Compromise; Quashing of
       criminal proceedings; s.482, CrPC.

                            Case Arising From

       CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 4114
       of 2024

       From the Judgment and Order dated 04.07.2023 of the High Court
       of Orissa at Cuttack in CRLMC No. 34 of 2022

       With

       Criminal Appeal No. 4115 of 2024

                         Appearances for Parties

       Rajiv Yadav, Adv. for the Appellant.

       Mukesh Kumar Maroria, Brijesh Kumar Tamber, Advs. for the
       Respondents.
[2024] 10 S.C.R.                                                       419

                     Tarina Sen v. Union of India & Anr.


                Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court
                                 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 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 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).
420                                                      [2024] 10 S.C.R.

                      Digital Supreme Court Reports


       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 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 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
[2024] 10 S.C.R.                                                     421

                     Tarina Sen v. Union of India & Anr.


          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
         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 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
422                                                          [2024] 10 S.C.R.

                            Digital Supreme Court Reports


       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 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., Calcutta;1
       (ii)    Nikhil Merchant v. Central Bureau of Investigation and
               another;2
       (iii)   Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and another;3
       (iv) Central Bureau of Investigation, ACB, Mumbai v. Narendra
            Lal Jain and others;4
       (v)     Narinder Singh and others v. State of Punjab and another;5
       (vi) Gold Quest International Private Limited v. State of Tamil
            Nadu and others; 6 and
       (vii) Central Bureau of Investigation v. Sadhu Ram Singla and
             others.7
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.


1    [1996] Supp. 3 SCR 360 : (1996) 5 SCC 591
2    [2008] 12 SCR 236 : (2008) 9 SCC 677
3    [2012] 8 SCR 753 : (2012) 10 SCC 303
4    [2014] 3 SCR 444 : (2014) 5 SCC 364
5    [2014] 4 SCR 1012 : (2014) 6 SCC 466
6    [2014] 7 SCR 677 : (2014) 15 SCC 235
7    [2017] 1 SCR 907 : (2017) 5 SCC 350
[2024] 10 S.C.R.                                                       423

                     Tarina Sen v. Union of India & Anr.


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 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.
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.
424                                                           [2024] 10 S.C.R.

                           Digital Supreme Court Reports


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.
       (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.

       Result of the Case: Appeal allowed.



       †
           Headnotes prepared by: Nidhi Jain