C. Y. SOMAYAJULU, J.

( 1 ) THESE petitions are filed to quash the FIRs registered against the petitioners on the basis of complaints given by the UCO Bank (i. e. ,2nd respondent in all these petitions) for offences under Section 420,464 and 468 IPC. Since common questions of fact and law arise in these petitions, they are being disposed of by a common order.

( 2 ) 2nd respondent (the Bank) filed private complaints against the petitioners alleging that petitioners, who are working in the office of the Accountant General, availed consumer loans by producing salary slips issued by the salary Disbursing Officer, with copies of irrevocable letter of authority given by them (petitioners/borrowers) authorizing him (Salary Disbursing Officer) to deduct the monthly installment amount to be paid by them to the Bank, directly to the credit of their loan account with the bank, and an undertaking letter of the Disbursing Officer, undertaking to deduct the monthly installments payable by the petitioners from their salary and that those amounts would be remitted to the credit of the account of the borrowers/petitioners, and when petitioners committed default in payment of the monthly installments due from them, it approached the Salary Disbursing Officer with a request to enforce the undertaking given by him, it came to light that the undertaking letters of salary Disbursing Officer produced by the petitioners before the Bank were in fact not given by him, and hence are liable for punishment under Section 420,464 and 468 ipc, were referred to police for investigation. So police registered the impugned FIRs against petitioners.

( 3 ) THE contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioners is that the second respondent-Bank by suppressing material fact of its launching prosecution against the petitioners for an offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (for short "the Act") gave reports against the petitioners to adapt arm twisting method of harassing and inconveniencing the petitioners, by trying to convert a civil liability into a crime. Relying on paras 54 and 56 in andhra Pradesh Scheduled Tribes Employees association v. Aditya Pratap Bhanj Dev and others reading:"54. It is also well settled that misrepresentation itself amounts to fraud. Indeed, innocent misrepresentation may also give reason to claim relief against fraud. A fraudulent misrepresentation is called deceit and consists in leading a man into damage by willfully or recklessly causing him to believe and act on falsehood. ""56. In an action of deceit the plaintiff must prove actual fraud. Fraud is proved when it is shown that a false representation has been made knowingly, or without belief in its truth, or recklessly, without caring whether it be true or false: a false statement, made through carelessness and without reasonable ground for believing it to be true, may be evidence of fraud but does not necessarily amount to fraud. Such a statement, if made in the honest belief that it is true, is not fraudulent and does not render the person make it liable to an action of deceit and relying on para 13 of Indian Bank v. Satyarn fibres (India) Pvt. Ltd. reading:". . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . THE appellant, in fact, raised the plea before the Commission that its judgment dated 16-11-93, which was based on letter No. 2776, was obtained by the respondent by practicing fraud not only on the appellant but on the commission too as letter No. 2776 dated 26-8-91n was forged by the respondent for the purpose of this case. This plea could not have been legally ignored by the Commissions which needs to be reminded that the Authorities, be they Constitutional, Statutory or administrative, (and particularly thosewho have to decide a lis) possess the power to recall their judgments or orders if they are obtained by fraud as Fraud and Justice never dwell together (Fraits et jus nunquam cohabitant ). It has been repeatedly said that Fraud and deceit defend of excuse no man (Fr

Click Here to Read the rest of this document