Authority: Calcutta High Court (Criminal Revisionary Jurisdiction)

Order Date: 16.09.2026

Case Overview

  • Parties: Petitioner Abhijit Halder (businessman and director of M/S Kali Mata Krishipanya Bipanan Pvt. Ltd) versus Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) and others, including State Bank of India (SBI).
  • Nature of Proceeding: Revisional application (CRR 3360 of 2022) seeking quashing of criminal proceedings arising from FIR No. RC 01/E/2018‑KOL dated 19.02.2018, registered under Section 120B read with Section 420 IPC and Section 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
  • Background:
  • A complaint dated 07.02.2018 was lodged by the Regional Manager of SBI, Burdwan, alleging conspiracy and fraud by the petitioner and other directors of the company.
  • CBI investigation resulted in a charge sheet filed on 18.09.2019, exonerating SBI officials but charging the petitioner and three other directors under Section 120B/420 IPC.
  • The petitioner claimed innocence, arguing that the alleged loan amounts (₹300 lakhs on 05.12.2009, ₹45 lakhs on 16.05.2014, and an enhancement of ₹100 lakhs on 19.09.2014) were settled, and that a one‑time settlement (OTS) was effected with the bank, accompanied by a No Dues Certificate.
  • Loan and Settlement Details:
  • The petitioner, as director of M/S Umananda Rice Mills Pvt. Ltd, gave a corporate guarantee for a loan of ₹4.45 cr.
  • As director of M/S KKBPL, he gave a personal guarantee and transferred a cash‑credit amount of ₹3 cr, which was later declared NPA on 28.11.2014.
  • A one‑time settlement was reached on 10.10.2017, accepted by SBI on 24.01.2018, for a total of ₹7.5 cr covering dues of both M/S Kali Mata Krishipanya Bipanan Pvt. Ltd and M/S Umananda Rice Mills Ltd, with a No Dues Certificate issued on 22.02.2019.
  • Additional settlements: OA/362/2015 for Umarpur Rice Mill Pvt. Ltd (loan ₹18,05,46,461.44 settled for ₹9,34,70,000) and withdrawals of proceedings for Kalimata Bipanan Pvt. Ltd. Total outstanding across three accounts was ₹51,45,54,822.16, while total settlement paid was ₹16,84,70,000.
  • Arguments Presented:
  • Petitioner’s Counsel (Senior Advocate Sekhar Kumar Basu) argued that the allegations of conspiracy were baseless, the loan was fully settled, and continuation of criminal trial would be oppressive and waste judicial resources. Reliance was placed on precedents such as Tarina Sen v. Union of India, Gian Singh v. State of Punjab, Shiji v. Radhika, CBI v. Duncans Agro Industries Ltd., and K Bharthi Devi v. State of Telangana.
  • CBI and SBI Counsel contended that settlement does not extinguish criminal liability, emphasizing that the petitioner misrepresented documents, diverted ₹50 lakhs to another company, and caused a wrongful loss of ₹412 lakhs (excluding interest) and total loss of ₹3.11 cr to the bank. They cited numerous Supreme Court decisions affirming that settlement does not bar prosecution for offences against society.
  • Precedent Discussion: The judgment examined a series of Supreme Court rulings on the effect of settlements in bank‑fraud cases, noting that while some cases allowed quashing where the offence was private, others held that offences involving public loss and fraud cannot be quashed merely because of repayment.

Final Outcome

  • The High Court, after detailed consideration of the facts, the CBI charge sheet, the settlements, and the applicable jurisprudence, held that proceeding with the criminal case after a full settlement and issuance of No Dues certificates would be an abuse of process with a remote possibility of conviction.
  • The revisional application was allowed. The FIR, charge sheet, and all criminal proceedings arising from FIR No. RC 01/E/2018‑KOL are quashed.
  • The petitioner is discharged, his bail bond is released, and all other connected applications are disposed of.
  • The court directed that certified copies of the order be supplied to parties upon compliance with formalities.

Topics: Criminal Procedure; Bank Fraud Settlement