Authority: High Court at Calcutta, Criminal Revisional Jurisdiction
Order Date: 16‑09‑2026
Case Overview
- Parties: Petitioner Abhijit Halder (Director of Umananda Rice Mill Pvt. Ltd.) vs. Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) and State Bank of India (SBI). The petition was filed under CRR 3361 of 2022.
- FIR Details: FIR No. RCBSK2018E0001 dated 06‑02‑2018 under Sec. 120B R/W 420 IPC and Sec. 13(2) R/W 13(1)(d) PC Act 1988, registered by CBI, Kolkata.
- Allegations: The petitioner, together with other directors of Umananda Rice Mill Pvt. Ltd., allegedly colluded with unknown SBI officials to obtain a cash‑credit limit, term loan and bank guarantees totalling Rs 28.35 crore (plus interest) for a rice‑mill project. The loan was purportedly secured by mortgaging land in the names of Madan Kumar Halder and Gobinda Halder, later transferred to Prasenjit Halder without the bank’s knowledge, and re‑mortgaged for an associate company (Kalimata Krishipanya Bipanan Pvt. Ltd.). The loan allegedly slipped into NPA on 31‑12‑2014, causing a loss of Rs 28.35 crore as on 31‑12‑2017.
- Charge Sheet: Submitted by CBI on 30‑11‑2018, charging the petitioner and three other directors under Sec. 120B R/W 420, Sec. 468/471 IPC. All SBI officials were exonerated.
- Settlement: A one‑time settlement of Rs 7.5 crore was proposed on 10‑10‑2017 and accepted by SBI on 24‑01‑2018 for the combined dues of Rs 28.35 crore (Umananda Rice Mill) and Rs 4.12 crore (KKBPL). SBI issued a “No Dues Certificate” on 22‑02‑2019 and withdrew the related Debt Recovery Tribunal (DRT) suits (OA 352/2015 and OA 362/2015). The settlement amount recorded in the DRT order was Rs 6.49 crore for the Rs 28.35 crore loan.
- Legal Submissions:
- Petitioner’s Counsel (Senior Adv. Sekhar Basu) argued that the charge sheet exonerated public servants, the settlement extinguished the dispute, and continuation would be oppressive and waste judicial resources.
- CBI’s Counsel contended that settlement does not absolve the petitioner of criminal liability, emphasizing that the offences (fraud, cheating, conspiracy) are non‑compoundable and the bank suffered a loss of ₹412 lakhs (excluding interest) as of 31‑12‑2017, with total loss of ₹3.11 cr after settlement.
- Bank’s Counsel highlighted that the settlement was for civil liability only and would not prejudice the pending criminal case.
- Precedents Cited: The judgment referenced numerous Supreme Court decisions – Tarina Sen v. Union of India, Gian Singh v. State of Punjab, CBI v. Maninder Singh, Rumi Dhar v. State of West Bengal, CBI v. Sarvodaya Highways Ltd., K. Bharathi Devi v. State of Telangana, Vijay Kumar Kela v. CBI, among others – to discuss the effect of settlement on non‑compoundable offences and the abuse‑of‑process doctrine.
- Key Observations:
- The Supreme Court has consistently held that settlement does not extinguish offences that are non‑compoundable or affect public interest.
- However, recent judgments (e.g., Vijay Kumar Kela 2026) allow quashing where the offence is commercial/financial, the settlement is genuine, and continuation would cause oppression.
- In the present case, the court found no material to sustain charges under the Prevention of Corruption Act and noted that the petitioner was not a public servant.
- The court also observed that the alleged forged documents claim was not substantiated against the petitioner.
Final Outcome
- The High Court allowed the revisional application, quashing the FIR, charge sheet, and all pending criminal proceedings against Abhijit Halder.
- All other connected applications, if any, were disposed of.
- The court directed that certified copies of the order be supplied to parties upon compliance with formalities.
Topics: Legal Settlement; Banking Fraud; Criminal Procedure