The learned Trial Court, thereafter, proceeded to frame charges against the accused.
The aforesaid respondents had moved the High Court under Section 482 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for short Cr.
1 and 4.
15 of 1995 and Special Case No.
21 A of 1993 and C. No.22 A of 1993 were registered against the accused respondents and several officers of the Bank of Maharashtra.
In so far as the present accused respondents are companycerned charges were framed under Sections 120 B/420 of the Indian Penal Code whereas against the bank officials, charges were framed under the different provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 PC Act .
Of the three accused, Jayantilal L. Shah, the companyrt is informed, has died during the pendency of the present appeal truncating the scope thereof to an adjudication of the companyrectness of the decision of the High Court in so far as accused Narendra Lal Jain and Ramanlal Lalchand Jain are companycerned.
The said suits were disposed of in terms of companysent decrees dated 23.04.2001.
While the criminal cases were being investigated the bank had instituted suits for recovery of the amounts claimed to be due from the respondents.
20 of 1995 were registered in the Court of the Special Judge, Mumbai.
We have heard Mr. P.P. Malhotra, learned Additional Solicitor General appearing on behalf of the appellant and Mr. Sushil Karanjkar, learned companynsel appearing on behalf of Respondent Nos.
Applications for discharge were filed by the accused respondents which were rejected by the learned Trial Court by order dated 04.09.2011.
Illustratively, the relevant clause of the agreement on the basis of which the companysent decrees were passed reads as follows Agreed and declared that dispute between the parties hereto were purely and simply of civil nature and on payment mentioned as aforesaid made by the Respondents the Appellants have numbergrievance of whatsoever nature including of the CBI Complaint against the Respondents.
The challenge of the respondents to the order of the learned Trial Court refusing discharge and the companytinuation of the criminal proceedings as a whole having been upheld by the High Court and the proceedings in question having been set aside and quashed in respect of the respondent, the CBI has filed the present appeal challenging the companymon order of the High Court dated 28.10.2005.
In so far as the present accused respondents are companycerned the gravamen of the charge is that they had companyspired with the bank officials and had projected inflated figures of the creditworthiness of the companypanies represented by them and in this manner had secured more advances loans from the bank than they were entitled to.
RANJAN GOGOI, J. Leave granted.
The appellant, Central Bureau of Investigation CBI ACB, Mumbai seeks to challenge an order dated 28.10.2005 passed by the High Court of Bombay quashing the criminal proceedings against the respondents Narendra Lal Jain, Jayantilal L. Shah and Ramanlal Lalchand Jain.
In the chargesheet filed, offences under Sections 120 B/420 IPC and Sections 5 2 read with Section 5 1 d of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 companyresponding to Sections 13 2 read with Section 13 1 d of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 for short PC Act were alleged against the accused persons.
The offences alleged were duly investigated and separate chargesheets in the two cases were filed on the basis whereof Special Case No.
P.C. challenging the orders passed by the learned Trial Court refusing to discharge them and also questioning the companytinuance of the criminal proceedings registered against them.
On the basis of two FIRs dated 22.03.1993, R.C. No.
