The main legal point established in the judgment is that a Recovery Agent for a public sector bank can be considered a 'public servant' under the Prevention of Corruption Act, and actions related to recovery of public money constitute a public duty.

JUDGMENT

RAJESH S.PATIL, J. - The present Criminal Application is filed under Sec. 482 of the Cr.P.C., by the applicant seeking two substantive reliefs therein :

1.1] The FIR No. RC PUNE/2021/A/0001 dtd. 18/1/2021 lodged in CBI, ACB, Pune under Sec. 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, be quashed and set aside. 1.2] The charge sheet filed in Special Case No. 51 of 2020 dtd. 25/3/2021 submitted in the Court of Special Judge, CBI cases, Jalgaon, be quashed and set aside. A. The parties.

2. The applicant was working as a Recovery Officer in one Yash Consultancy Services (Recovery Agency of Dena Bank now known as Bank of Baroda). The Informant (Complainant) is a borrower of vehicle loan from Dena Bank. B. First Information Report's Contents :-

3. 1] It is the case of the complainant - Subhash Kashinath Rane in his complaint dtd. 12/1/2021 lodged with CBI, ACB, Pune which was registered as FIR No. RC PUNE 21/A/001, dtd. 18/1/2021 that, he had obtained a loan from Dena Bank (now Bank of Baroda) from Chalisgaon Branch in the year 2010-11 for purchase of tractor. He defaulted in payment of installments of the said loan. On 8/1/2021, at about 8.30 a.m. in the morning, the present Applicant, claiming to be the Recovery Officer of the Bank of Baroda, came to his house and showed him one notice of the bank and further stated that the complainant had taken loan of Rs.5.00 Lakhs which has now become 12 Lakhs, due to non payment of installments. Hence, he had come to seize the tractor. The complainant has further stated that, he then requested the Recovery Officer not to seize the tractor. The said Recovery Officer then demanded Rs.20, 000.00 in cash from the complainant and further mentioned that only after he receives Rs.20, 000.00, he will not seized the tractor. It is further case of the complainant in his complaint that he paid Rs.10, 000.00 as a part payment immediately, and further agreed to pay the balance Rs.10, 000.00 on 21/1/2021. So also, agreed to compromise and put an end to the said loan account which has now become 12 Lakhs by fixing the outstanding amount as Rs.5.00 Lakhs.

3.2] Thereafter, the complainant- Subhash Rane on 12/1/2021 lodged a complaint with CBI, ACB, Mumbai. Accordingly, on 19/1/2021 a trap was laid at Chalisgaon. The applicant Prashant Vinayakrao Sable came to the spot and was caught red handed. He was arrested by the CBI team and taken into custody, and after two days was granted bail on 21/1/2021. 3.3] The applicant has now challenged the FIR by filing the present criminal application under Sec. 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. C. Averments in Criminal Application.

4. 1] It is the case of the applicant in Criminal Application filed under Sec. 482 of Cr.p.c. That, he was working in the firm M/s. Yash Consultancy Services. It is further his case that Yash Consultancy Services used to work as Recovery Agent with various banks. Amongst them, one bank was Dena Bank (now known as Bank of Baroda). The applicant further stated that on 18/1/2021, the FIR was registered against him based on alleged complaint of complainant Mr. Subhash Rane.

4.2] It is further case of the applicant that, applicant applied for bail before the learned Sessions Judge, Jalgaon. The said bail application was allowed by order dtd. 21/1/2021 and soon the applicant was released on bail.

4.3] It is the applicant's case that immediately after bail was granted, he has filed the present criminal application under Sec. 482 on 15/3/2021 for quashing of the FIR, on various grounds which are stated in the application. It is contended that on reading the FIR, it can be seen that the offence under Sec. 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act is not attracted. It is further stated that the applicant was the Recovery Officer of M/s. Yash Consultancy and was not Recovery Officer of Bank of Baroda. Hence, the applicant is not "Public Servant" within the definition of Sec. 2(c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. It is further stated that the applican