Continuation Of Criminal Prosecution Would Be Abuse Of Process Of Court After Exoneration By CVC: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court held that the continuation of criminal prosecution would be abuse of process of the Court after exoneration by the Central Vigilance Commission (CVC).

The Court held thus in a batch of two Petitions challenging the framing of the charge under Section 120B read with Sections 420, 467, 468, and 471 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) and Section 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (PC Act).

A Single Bench of Justice Neena Bansal Krishna observed, “… there is nothing more which can be brought on record by the Prosecution in support of their allegations against the Petitioner and he on identical Charge stands exonerated by CVC. The continuation of the criminal prosecution would be an abuse of process of the Court and not in the interest of justice.”

The Bench was dealing with a question as to whether the criminal prosecution can continue when the departmental proceedings, which require a lower standard of proof, have found no merit in the allegations.

Advocate Sewa Ram appeared for the Petitioner, while SPP Ripudaman Bhardwaj appeared for the Respondent.

Case Background

In 2012, a written complaint was given against M/s Century Communication Limited (CCL) and others. The CCL was engaged in the business of the media industry and was providing production and post-production facilities like shooting of films and graphic facilities, etc. In 2004, a term loan of Rs. 60 crores including Rs. 15 crores was sanctioned by the Consortium of Banks and Indian Overseas Bank (IOB) for setting up of digital studio at Mumbai.

Various Term Loans were sanctioned in favour of CCL from 2005 till 2009, and the Cash Credit Limit was enhanced further in 2010. It was alleged that CCL diverted funds using fake invoices and shell companies, causing a loss of Rs. 16,319.81 lakhs. Hence, an FIR was registered under the relevant Sections of IPC and PC Act. The Special Judge framed the charges against the Petitioner who was the General Manager overseeing the working of the unit. Challenging this, he was before the High Court.

Reasoning

The High Court in the above context of the case, said, “The final finding “Article-I is held as ‘Not Proved’ ” is a categorical determination of innocence, not a mere absence of penalty. … The aforesaid conclusion of the Inquiry Officer reflects that the findings were not based on benefit of doubt or technicalities, but on substantive evaluation of the allegations against the Petitioner and the evidence against him. The CVC Order affirmatively holds that the Petitioner acted as per norms and the Invoice verification was not his responsibility.”

The Court noted that the allegations in the CVC Inquiry and the criminal prosecution are identical and both proceedings relate to the same conduct - the Inspection Report and the allegation of confirming installation of equipment without proper verification by matching with Invoices.

“Thus, it is quite clear that the CVC Order is unequivocally an exoneration of the Petitioner, on merits. … Therefore, the present FIR / RC.No.BDI/2012/E/0003 along with all the proceedings emanating therefrom including the Order on Charge dated 25.02.2017, is hereby quashed against the Petitioner”, it added.

Accordingly, the High Court allowed the Petitions and quashed the FIR against the accused.

Cause Title- Gurbachan Singh Matta v. Central Bureau of Investigation (Neutral Citation: 2025:DHC:9367)

Appearance:

Petitioner: Advocates Sewa Ram and C.S. Walia.

Respondent: SPP Ripudaman Bhardwaj, Advocates Kushagra Kumar, Abhinav Bhardwaj, and Amit Kumar Rana.

Click here to read/download the Judgment