RUMI DHAR versus STATE OF WEST BENGAL & ANR.

Citation: [2009] 5 S.C.R. 553 · Decided: 08-04-2009 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.B. SINHA · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

[2009) 5 S.C.R. 553 
-f 
RUMIDHAR 
A 
v. 
STATE OF WEST BENGAL & ANR. 
(Criminal Appeal No. 661 of 2009) 
~ 
APRIL 8, 2009 
B 
[S.B.SINHA AND DR. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA, JJ.] 
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: s.239 - Discharge -
Accused persons charged for defrauding the bank, 
falsification of account and forgery of records - Charges also c 
framed - Meanwhile some settlement arrived at in the debt 
recovery suit before Tribunal - Payment made by accused 
in terms of settlement-Application for discharge by accused 
:>-
-Held: Trial Court rightly dismissed application for discharge 
- Settlement with the creditor would not exonerate the 
D 
accused from prima facie charge in a criminal case - While 
considering application for discharge uls. 239, it is for trial 
court to go into details of allegations made against each of 
accused persons to form opinion as to whether any case was 
made out- The High Court, in exercise of its jurisdiction under 
E 
s. 482 and Supreme Court, in terms of Article 142 of 
Constitution would not direct quashing of case involving crime 
against the society particularly when both the courts below 
; 
found that a prima facie case was made out against the 
accused for framing charge - Constitution of India, 1950 -
F 
Article 142 - Penal Code, 1860 - ss. 120-8, 420, 468, 471 -
Evidence Act, 1872 - s.43 - Compromise/Settlement. 
Prosecution case was that appellant, her husband 
and some Officers of Creditor bank were prosecuted for 
commission of offences under ss.120-Bl4201468 and 471 
G 
IPC. A charge sheet was filed against the appellant and 
seven others. Appellant was charged for taking the 
benefit of overdrafts. For realization of said amount, Bank 
filed application for recovery before DR Tribunal. Before 
553 
H 
554 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2009] 5 S.C.R. 
A the tribunal, appellant and the Bank entered into a 
settlement pursuant whereto Rs. 25.51 lacs was paid. 
..
CBI returned the title deeds in respect of the property 
which were kept as security for obtaining the loan from 
the Bank. 
B 
Appellant filed an application under s.239 CrPC for 
~ 
discharge on the ground that as the matter was settled 
~ 
with the Bank, proceedings against her should be 
dropped. The Special Judge dismissed the application 
c 
holding that mere repayment would not exonerate the 
accused from the prima facie charge in a criminal case. 
High Court dismissed revision petition filed by appellant. 
Hence the appeal. 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
D 
,!._ 
HELD:1. Appellant allegedly took part in conspiracy 
in defrauding the bank. Serious charges of falsification 
of accounts and forgery of records were also alleged. It 
is now a well settled principle of law that in a given case, 
E a civil proceeding and a criminal proceedings can 
proceed simultaneously. Bank is entitled to recover the 
amount of loan given to the debtor. If in connection with 
obtaining the said loan, criminal offences were committed 
by the persons accused thereof including the officers of 
F 
the bank, criminal proceedings would also indisputably 
be maintainable. When a settlement is arrived at by and 
•. 
between the creditor and the debtor, the offence 
committed as such would not come to an end. The 
judgment of a tribunal in a civil proceeding and that too 
when it is rendered on the basis of settlement entered 
G into by and between the parties, would not be of much 
relevance in a criminal proceeding having regard to the 
provisions contained in Section 43 of the Evidence Act. 
[Paras 17 and 18] [560-E-H; 561-A] 
H 
RUMI DHAR v. STATE OF WEST BENGAL & ANR. 
555 
t 
2. The judgment in the civil proceedings would be 
A 
admissible in evidence only for a limited purpose. It is not 
a case where the parties entered into a compromise in 
relation to the criminal charges. In fact, the offence 
alleged against the accused being an offence against the 
society and the allegations contained in the first 8 
information report having been investigated by the CBI, 
the bank could not have entered into any settlement ·at 
all. The CBI did not file any application for withdrawal of 
the case. Not only a charge sheet was been filed, charges 
were also framed. At the stage of framing charge, the c 
appellant filed an application for discharge. One of the 
main accused was the husband of the appellant. The 
complicity of the accused persons was, thus, required to 
be taken into consideration for the purpose of 
... 
determining the applicatio

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.