Hon'ble Mrs. Saroj Yadav,J.
Heard Mr. Pranjal Krishna, learned counsel for petitioner, Mr. Manendra Kr. Misra, Advocate holding brief of Mr. S.B. Pandey, learned Sr. Advocate for opposite party no. 1, Mr. Shiv P. Shukla, learned counsel for opposite party no. 2, Mr. Sharad Tewari, learned counsel for opposite party no. 3, Mr. Vinay Shanker, learned counsel for opposite parties no. 4, 6 & 9 and Mr. Chandra Shekhar Sinha, learned counsel for opposite party no. 5.
The writ petition has been filed challenging the FIR No. RC0742020E0005 dated 15.09.2020, under Section 120-B read with Section 420 IPC, Section 13 (2) read with Section 13 (1)(d) Prevention of Corruption Act, P.S. CBI, Banking Security and Fraud Cell, New Delhi.
Learned counsel for petitioner submits that petitioner is the promoter of Company, namely, Rotomac Pens Private Limited (hereinafter referred to as 'Company'). Later on, the Company has diversified its business into various segments like import/export trading on various items. The Company had taken a financial assistance from Consortium Bank consisting of seven nationalized banks under the Working Capital Agreement dated 6.10.2015. The Consortium of Banks consisted of several banks such as Bank of India, Bank of Baroda, Union Bank of India, Indian Overseas Bank, Allahabad Bank, Oriental Bank of Commerce and Bank of Maharshtra under the leadership of Bank of India wherein the Company was sanctioned certain credit facilities including non-fund based and fund based limits of Rs. 2129 crores. The opposite party no. 5 made a complaint to opposite party no. 2 regarding the alleged loss of Rs. 456.63 crores which was the exposure of opposite party no. 5 in the consortium. Consequently, an FIR was registered at case Crime No. RC/BD1/2018/E/001, under Sections 120-B read with 420, 467, 468 IPC, 13 (2) read with 13 (1)(d) Prevention of Corruption Act against four accused-persons including the petitioner alleging therein that the accused persons have misappropriated/diverted bank's funds thereby committed the offence of criminal conspiracy, cheating, forgery of valuable security amount. The charge-sheet dated 19.05.2018 has been filed by opposite party no. 2 against the petitioner along with five other accused persons under Sections 120-B read with 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC, 13 (2) read with 13(1)(d) Prevention of Corruption Act. The learned Special Judge, CBI, Anti Corruption (Central), Lucknow has taken cognizance vide order dated 7.6.2018 in Criminal Case No. 1051 of 2018 (CBI vs,. Vikram Kothari & Others).
It is submitted that this Hon'ble Court was pleased to enlarge the present petitioner on bail vide order dated 20.09.2019 passed in Criminal Misc. Case No. 3423 (Bail) of 2019. The bail order contains certain conditions, copy of the same is on record as Annexure-8 to the writ petition.
It is further submitted that the second bank from the Consortium i.e., opposite party no. 3 lodged the present complaint which was subsequently registered as the impugned FIR against four accused-persons including the petitioner inter alia alleging therein that the accused-persons have fraudulently committed the offences of criminal conspiracy, cheating and misappropriation of Bank's funds thereby causing a wrongful loss of Rs. 806.74 crores and a corresponding wrongful gain to themselves.
During arguments, learned counsel for petitioner also informs that the Allahabad Bank which is also member of the Consortium has also lodged FIR against the petitioner and other accused-persons in which the investigation is still pending.
Learned Counsel for CBI submits that the impugned FIR has been lodged at New Delhi, as such, the instant writ petition is not maintainable on the ground of lack of territorial jurisdiction.
It is also submitted that the CBI has already completed investigation and the charge-sheet has been filed in the criminal case in which the FIR was lodged by one of the members of the Consortium Bank i.e, Bank of Baroda. It is further submitted that the investigation is still pending with respect to the FIR lodged by the Allahabad Bank.
Mr. Sharad Tewari, learned counsel for the complainant-Bank submits that the investigation is pending at present and there is no reason for the grant of indulgence by this Court.
We have considered the submissions made by the parties' counsel and gone through the record.
It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that vide letter dated 13.05.2015 issued by the Ministry of Finance, Department of Financial Service, Government of India, New Delhi it has been provided that in case of Consortium lending/multiple banking arrangements only one bank will be required to file an FIR and all other Banks would extend necessary support to the investigating agency of the fraud, including by way of providing all necessary information, documents, etc. Submission is that in view of the said arrangements, the impugned FIR is bad in law.
It is to be noted that the said Consortium Bank consisted of seven banks involving different amount of money and the alleged loss due to the alleged offence have been caused to these banks consisted of different amplitude.
It is also to be noted that the CBI has already filed charge-sheet in the FIR lodged by one of the members of the Consortium Bank i.e., Bank of Baroda. The concerning Court has also taken cognizance of the said charge-sheet and the matter is pending before the Court concerned.
We have also taken note of the fact that the petitioner had not approached this Court earlier when the FIR was lodged by the other Consortium Banks such as Bank of Baroda and Allahabad Bank.
In view of above, we are of the considered view that no indulgence is required by this Court at this stage. The petitioner has appropriate legal remedy of approaching the concerning Court under Section 438/439 Cr.P.C.
The writ petition is accordingly dismissed.
[Saroj Yadav, J.] [Ritu Raj Awasthi, J.] Order Date :- 11.1.2021 Santosh/-