The central legal point established in the judgment is the court's authority to exercise inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code to quash criminal proceedings when the material produced by the accused rules out the assertions contained in the charges and prevents abuse of process of the court.

ORDER :

1. Heard Mr. Naman H. Kinkhabwala and Mr. Z.L. Khan, learned advocates for the petitioners, Mr. Chintan Dave, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent No. 1- State Government and Mr. Rakesh R. Patel, learned advocate for respondent No. 2.

2. By way of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as “the Code”) the petitioners have prayed for quashing and setting aside the FIR bearing CR No. I-452 of 2002 registered with Naranpura Police Station, Ahmedabad and consequential proceedings which are pending in form of Criminal Case No. 368 of 2004, 23 of 2005 and 980 of 2011 before the Metropolitan Magistrate Court No. 9, Ahmedabad including the supplementary charge-sheet.

3. At the outset, learned advocates for the petitioners has submitted that out of present three petitioners, petitioner Nos. 1 and 3 have passed away. He has produced the document relating to the death of petitioner No. 3, which is taken on record of the present petition.

4. Hence, in view of the above, the petition is abated qua petitioner Nos. 1 and 3 and present petition is alive now only for petitioner No. 2-Ms. Alkaben Nitinbhai Patel.

5. The facts which emerged from the record of the petition are summed up as under:

5.1 It is the case of the petitioner that Manager of the respondent No. 2 bank has filed complaint against the director of the bank and also against the 19 borrowers of the bank on 30.8.2022 alleging mismanagement and misappropriation of public fund by management in collusion with the borrowers. It further appears from the record that the respondent No. 2 bank also resorted to civil proceedings and preferred separate recovery suits before the Board of nominees. It is further averred that the petitioner had obtained loan by giving appropriate security and documents. It further appears that the petitioner was arrested in pursuance to the above referred complaint and thereafter the petitioner was enlarged on bail by this Court.

6. Learned advocate for the petitioner submitted that in view of the fact that the Bank has already received amount due and payable from the petitioner, no civil liabilities exist.

6.1 It is further contended on behalf of the petitioner that there is no material on record or even collected during the course of investigation which would establish that the loan was obtained by the petitioner by furnishing security which was not valid.

6.2 It is, therefore, submitted that any further continuance of the criminal proceedings pursuant to the impugned FIR as well as the charge-sheet would amount to harassment to the petitioner and the same would amount to abuse of process of law and Court and therefore, in order to secure the ends of justice, this Court may exercise its inherent powers conferred under Section 482 of the Code and quash the complaint and consequent proceedings as prayed for.

6.3 Learned advocate for the petitioner has also pointed out that in similarly situated case relating to another Cooperative Bank, this Court (Coram: M.R. Shah, J.) was pleased to quash the complaint while allowing the petition being Special Criminal Application No. 196 of 2012 vide judgment and order dated 16.2.2012. He has submitted that the facts arising out of this petition are similar to the aforesaid petition and therefore, applying the ratio laid down by this Court in the aforesaid case, this petition deserves to be allowed. The learned advocate for the petitioner has also relied upon the other similar orders passed by this Court wherein on account of dues having been paid, this Court has exercised its inherent powers conferred under Section 482 of the Code.

7. Mr. Rakesh Patel, learned advocate for respondent No. 2 Bank-original complainant has not disputed that the entire amount due and payable has been repaid by the petitioner and has also not disputed the existence of no due certificate.

8. Mr. Chintan Dave, learned Additional