2019 INSC 0162
NON­REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL Nos.2107­2125 OF 2011
C.B.I.  New Delhi            ….Appellant(s)
VERSUS
B.B. Agarwal & Ors. etc.  ….Respondent(s)
                 
J U D G M E N T
Abhay Manohar Sapre, J.  
1. These   appeals   are   directed   against   the   final
judgment   and   order   dated   18.04.2009   passed   by
the   High   Court   of   Delhi   at   New   Delhi   in   Crl.MC
Nos.5722­30   of   2006   &   Crl.MA   No.9675   of   2006,
Crl.MC   No.74   of   2007   &   Crl.MA   Nos.235­36   of
1

2007,   Crl.MC   No.80   of   2007   &   Crl.MA   Nos.259­60
of   2007   and   Crl.MC   No.2376   of   2007   &   Crl.MA
Nos.8341­42   of   2007   whereby   the   High   Court
allowed   the   criminal   petitions   filed   by   the
respondents   herein   under   Section   482   of   the   Code
of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to
as  “Cr.P.C.”)  and  quashed  the  criminal  proceedings
in   CBI   Case   No.RC.4(A)/94­CBI/BSC/DLI   pending
before   the   Special   Judge,   Tis   Hazari,   Delhi   against
the respondents herein.
2. A   f ew   facts   need   mention   hereinbelow   to
appreciate   the   short   controversy   involved   in   these
appeals.
3. In   the   year   1992­93,   it   came   to   the   notice   of
Investigating   Agency   (CBI)   that   two   Limited
Companies,     namely,     M/s   New   Beam   Ferro   Alloys
Ltd.(NBFAL)   ­   Respondent   No.   6   and   M/s   West
2

Coast   Brewers   &   Distillers   Ltd.(WCBDL)­
respondent No. 7 came out with public issue of their
companies   and   in   execution   of   the   public   issue,
these Companies were alleged to have defrauded the
Punjab   National   Bank   (PNB),   PNB   House   Branch,
Sir   P.M.   Road,   Fort,   Mumbai   to   the   tune   of     Rs.15
crores approximately. 
4. It   may   not   be   necessary   to   set   out   the   details
as   to   how   the   alleged   defalcation   was   done   by   the
said two Companies. 
5. Suffice   it   to   say,   the   investigation   was   carried
out by the CBI which led to filing of a criminal case
bearing   No.   RC4(A)/94­CBI/BSC/DLI   against   the
Directors  of  the  companies  and  the   officials  of   PNB
under   Section   120B   read   with   Sections   409,   420,
468,   471   of     the   Indian   Penal   Code,   1860
(hereinafter   referred   to   as   “IPC”)   read   with   Section
13(2)   read   with   Section   13(i)   (c)   and   (d)   of   the
3

Prevention   of   Corruption   Act,   1988   (hereinafter
referred   to   as   “PC   Act”)   in   the   designated   C.B.I.
Court,  Delhi.
6. The charge sheet was filed against 12 accused
persons   out   of   which   6   are   individuals   and
remaining   are   the   Companies.   It   is   not   in   dispute
that   during   the   pendency   of   this   case,     four
individual accused persons have died. It is also not
in   dispute   that   out   of   the   accused­Companies,   the
names   of   two   companies,   namely,   WCBDL
(respondent   No.   7)   and   Surlex   Dignostic   Ltd.
(respondent   No.   8)   have   been   deleted   vide   order
dated  09.09.2011.
7.  It is not in dispute that PNB had also filed two
civil   suits   bearing   Nos.   342/1995   and   2740/1995
against   the   Companies­WCBDL(R­7)   and   NBFAL
(R­6)   and   its   Directors   in   Bombay   High   Court   for
recovery of the outstanding dues and for settlement
4

of   the   accounts   which   were   later   transferred   to   the
Debt   Recovery   Tribunal,   Mumbai   (OA
No.3174/2000) for trial. It is also not in dispute that
during   the   pendency   of   these   civil   suits   and
pursuant   to   orders   passed   therein   directing   the
parties   to   undertake   reconciliation   of   the   accounts,
the   PNB   and   the   two   companies   through   their
Directors   reconciled   their   accounts   and
compromised the matter by entering into a one­time
settlement   on   06.06.2006.   The   consent   application
in O.A. No.3174 of 2000 was accordingly filed by the
parties   in   DRT,   Mumbai     for   disposal   of   the   OA   in
terms of the settlement arrived at between them.
8. The   DRT   by   its   order   dated   11.05.2006
accepted the settlement and accordingly disposed of
OA   No.   3174/2000   in   terms   of   settlement.   (See
documents   filed   in   IA­12323/2019).   In   terms   of
settlement   order,   the   two   companies   were   liable   to
5

pay   a   total   sum   of   Rs.12.20   crores   to   PNB,   which
the two Companies, through their Directors, paid to
the   PNB.  It  is not  in   dispute  that   now   there  are  no
outstanding   dues   payable   by   these   two   Companies
to   the   PNB   and   the   order   of   DRT   stood   complied
with.
9. It   is   with   these   background   facts,   the   12
respondents(accused) filed the petitions in the High
Court of Delhi under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. seeking
to   quash   the   criminal   proceedings   filed   against
them. 
10. By   impugned   order,   the   High   Court   allowed
the petitions and quashed the criminal proceedings,
which has given rise to filing of the present appeals
by way of special leave  by the CBI in this Court.
11. So,   the   short   question,   which   arises   for
consideration in these appeals, is whether the High
Court was justified in allowing the petitions filed by
6

the   respondents   under   Section   482   of   the   Cr.P.C
and quashing the criminal proceedings.
12. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
13. Having   heard   the   learned   counsel   for   the
parties and on perusal of the record of the case, we
find no merit in these appeals.
14. In our considered opinion, having regard to the
background   facts   stated   above,   we   find   no   good
ground to interfere in the impugned order. 
15. The   High   Court   was   of   the   view   that   on
resettlement   of   accounts,   the   parties   obtained   the
consent   decree   from   DRT   and   paid   the   entire   sum,
therefore, there is no live issue, which now survives.
The   High   Court   then   examined   the   question   as   to
whether the issue of criminality is involved so as to
allow   the   Trial   Court   to   continue   on   its   merits.
After examining this issue with reference to charges
and   documents,   the   High   Court   held   that   no
7

criminality   issue   is   found   involved   notwithstanding
the settlement of the case between the parties.
16.   We   are   also   of   the   view   that   there   arises   no
occasion   to   prosecute   the   respondents   as   was
rightly   held   by   the   High   Court   while   quashing   the
criminal case against the respondents.
17. Learned   counsel   for   the   appellant,   placing
reliance   on   the   decision   of   this   Court   in   Rumi
Dhar(Smt.)   vs.   State   of   West   Bengal   &   Anr. ,
(2009)   6   SCC   364   contended   that   notwithstanding
settlement   of   the   civil   suits   by   the   parties,   the
criminal   case   out   of   which   these   appeals   arise   has
to be brought to its logical end one way or the other
on   merits   and   the   High   Court   was,   therefore,   not
right   in   quashing   the   charge­sheet   at   its   threshold
under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. 
18. We find no merit in her submission. When we
take into account the entire undisputed controversy
8

mentioned   above,   we   also   find   that   there   is   no
criminality   issue   surviving   qua   those   accused,   who
are   alive   so   as   to   allow   the   prosecuting   agency   to
continue with the criminal trial on merits. Indeed, it
would   be   an   abuse   of   process,   as   was   rightly   held
by the High Court to which we concur. 
19. In view of the foregoing discussion, we find no
merit in these appeals. The appeals are accordingly
dismissed. 
       
                                      .………...................................J.
                                    [ ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE ]     
                                
     … ...……..................................J.
                    [L. NAGESWARA RAO]
New Delhi;
February 18, 2019
9