ORDER :

Petitioners are arraigned as Accused Nos.1, 10 and 11 in C.C.No.53018/2016 arising out of Cr.No.240/2011 of Hennur P.S. for the offences punishable under Sections 418, 419, 420, 465, 468, 467, 474 and 120B read with Section 34 of the IPC, 1860. This petition is filed seeking to quash the criminal proceedings initiated against them in C.C.No.53018/2016 pending before the Court of the XI ACMM, Bangalore.

2. Factual matrix of the prosecution case is as under:

The petitioners said to be arraigned as Accused Nos. 1, 10 and 11 are the employees of M/s. India Bulls Housing Finance Ltd., Malleswaram, Bangalore, (for short ‘IBHFL’). The aforesaid IBHFL is a Company registered under the Companies Act, 1956 having its registered office at F-16, Malhothra Building, Connaught Place, New Delhi having branches all over India and this case pertains to Bangalore Branch. The said IBHFL has been recognized by the Government of India as financial institution under Section 2(1)(m)(iv) of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (‘SARFAESI Act’, for short) by virtue of notification issued in No.F No.1/1/2006-BO-I dated 19.09.2007 of the Department of Financial Services, Ministry of Finance, Government of India.

It further reveals from the charge-sheeted material that IBHFL has been lending finance and loan for housing purposes including mortgage loan for buying houses. Accordingly, Accused No.3/Narasimha and his wife Smt. Gayathri had applied for mortgage loan on 24.05.2010 by approaching M/s. IBHFL for the purpose of purchase of house property of Smt. Minnie Varghese bearing Nos.41, 42, 43 and 44, Khata No.248, Vaddarapalya village, Horamavu - Agara, K.R. Puram, Bangalore, to an extent of Rs.1-00 crore by way of deposit of title deeds. A copy of the application for loan and its enclosures and legal opinion are produced vide Annexures “F” and “G”. As per the procedure maintained while granting loan, all the documents connected with this proposed house property to be purchased were enclosed and the same were processed by different officers of IBHFL and the same was sent for securing legal opinion with M/s. D and M Law Associates. In pursuance of the act of the accused and on filing of a complaint by Respondent No.2/Smt. Minnie Varghese, Cr.No.240/2011 was registered by the Hennur P.S. by recording an FIR and proceeded with the case for investigation and submitting charge-sheet against Accused No.1, Accused No.10 and Accused No.11 in C.C.No.53018/2016 who are the petitioners before this court.

3. Heard the learned Senior counsel Shri Hashmath Pasha for the petitioners and the learned HCGP for Respondent No.1. Respondent No.2 is represented by Shri Gireesha N who is on record. But however, Respondent No.2/Smt. Minnie Varghese is arraigned as the complainant in C.C.No.53018/2016. Therefore, as per Section 301 of the Cr.P.C., the role of the counsel for Respondent No.2 is only to a limited extent who could not independently address the arguments but only to assist the learned HCGP for Respondent No.1 who is on record and represents the State. Therefore, the arguments on the part of Respondent No.1 by HCGP for the State has been heard, which shall also take care of the arguments of Respondent No.2, keeping in view Section 301 of the Cr.P.C.

4. The learned Senior counsel for the petitioner Shri Hashmath Pasha has taken me through the entire chargesheet consisting of the statement of witnesses and so also the material documents secured by the I.O. during the course of investigation in order to lay the charge-sheet against the accused persons inclusive of Accused No.1, Accused No.10 and Accused No.11 who are the petitioners before this court and they are the employees of M/s. IBHFL Company which is established under the Companies Act, 1956. On the perusal of the entire charge-sheet materials at a cursory glance, it reveals that there is no specific allegation against these Accused Nos.1, 10