Ketan Parekh seeks quashing of FIR citing settlement with bank

In view of the settlement,the bank had issued a “no dues certificate” in 2008. Parekh had then moved an application for compounding before the trial court to which the CBI filed its reply.

The special judge had then rejected the application. Parekh states that the special judge erred in rejecting the application disregarding the facts that the bank had issued NDC and also filed their say that the bank did not wish to pursue the matter further.

According to the chargesheet,Parekh in conspiracy with the bank officials,had carried out the misdeed. The chargesheet was filed for offences under the IPC for cheating and forgery.

Parekh alleged that although the CBI claims to be acting on the complaint of the bank,the authority was in fact acting at the behest of one Apeedee Investments. Parekh says that it would be necessary to bring on record various suits filed between Apeedee Investments and Parekh Group. Parekh states that the order passed by the special judge is bad in law,based on incorrect findings and in absolute and total defiance of provision under the CrPC.

Parekh has also cited a Supreme Court judgement whereby trial court has powers to allow compounding of charges.

Parekh has now urged the court to call for the records and stay the proceedings in the special case till the pendency of the petition. He has also sought for quashing of the order passed by the special judge.

A special court for (Trial of Offences Relating to Transactions in Securities Act) had sentenced stockbrokers Parekh and Hiten Dalal along with four others to one year rigorous imprisonment each in the 1992 security scam case.

The stockbrokers along with top officers of Canfina,Bangalore were convicted on March 7 in a Rs 47 crore securities fraud for “entering into a criminal conspiracy to dishonestly siphon off the funds of Canbank Financial Services (Canfina) in 1991-92”.

This was the scam where Parekh’s name surfaced for the first time. “Had he been convicted and jailed earlier,he would not have committed other offences”,Justice Kanade said,in reference to Parekh’s involvment in the later scams.    

CBI counsel D N Salvi has opposed the plea after citing Supreme Court judgements which had ruled against compounding of offences.