Criminal Prosecution Can't Continue After Exoneration In Departmental And Vigilance Inquiry: Delhi High Court
The Delhi High Court has held that criminal prosecution cannot continue when the departmental proceedings as well as the Vigilance inquiry have found no merit in the allegations against an individual.Justice Neena Bansal Krishna allowed the petitions filed by one Gurbachan Singh Matta challenging an FIR registered by the CBI (Bank Securities & Fraud Cell) and framing of corruption...
The Delhi High Court has held that criminal prosecution cannot continue when the departmental proceedings as well as the Vigilance inquiry have found no merit in the allegations against an individual.
Justice Neena Bansal Krishna allowed the petitions filed by one Gurbachan Singh Matta challenging an FIR registered by the CBI (Bank Securities & Fraud Cell) and framing of corruption charges against him.
The complaint, filed by one one G. Ravindra Kumar Gandhi in 2012, alleged that M/s Century Communication Limited (CCL) and officials of Indian Overseas Bank (IOB) had conspired to cheat a consortium of banks.
It was alleged that M/s CCL obtained a Rs. 60 crore term loan in 2004 and other facilities from a consortium led by IOB for setting up a digital studio in Mumbai.
It was also alleged that fake invoices were submitted and funds were diverted for unauthorized purposes, causing a loss of Rs. 163.19 crore to banks.
As per the FIR, Matta was a General Manager at IOB and allegedly confirmed installation of equipment in an inspection report, without verifying invoices, thereby violating internal circulars. Charges were framed against him in 2017.
It was Matta's case that the CVC (Vigilance) inquiry and departmental inquiry later conducted against him on same allegations had exonerated him completely.
He thus argued that continuation of criminal proceedings after departmental exoneration would be an abuse of process.
Allowing the pleas, the Court said the allegations against Matta failed to establish the essential ingredient of mens rea required for offences under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 of Indian Penal Code and Section 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act.
It said that absence of any material to show that Matta had knowledge of the alleged fraud or that he intentionally facilitated the same, lead to inevitable conclusion of his innocence.
Justice Krishna noted that the CVC, after detailed enquiry, found the allegations against Matta to be unfounded and that his exoneration was on identical allegations made in the chargesheet.
“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 said.
Observing that the allegations in the CVC Inquiry and the criminal prosecution were identical, the Court quashed the FIR and charges framed against Matta.
“In view of the aforesaid, 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 Court concluded.
Title: GURBACHAN SINGH MATTA v. CENTRAL BAUREAU OF INVESTIGATION & other connected matter
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1378