IN THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI
C.R. SARMA, J.
Smti Rita Mazumdar – Petitioners
Versus
The State of Assam & Ors. – Respondents
Crl. Pet. 702/2012
Decided On : 05.08.2015
Recovery of Debts due to Bank and Financial Institution Act, 1993 - Section 19 (3) - Indian Penal Code,1860 - Sections 120(B)/419/468/420/471 - Criminal Procedure Code,1973 - Section 482 - Quashing - Petitioner along with her husband who is also one of accused persons in said P.S. case were Managing Director and Director respectively of a Private Limited Company - Respondent No. 3 informant in said Case as owner of a plot of land agreed to offer his said land for development said Company on entered into an agreement with respondent No. 3 for developing a plot of land as mentioned in schedule to said agreement - Held, High Court being highest court of a State should normally refrain from giving a premature decision in a case wherein entire facts are extremely incomplete and hazy more so when evidence has not been collected and produced before Court and issues involved whether factual or legal are of great magnitude and cannot be seen in their true perspective without sufficient material - Of course no hard and fast rule can be laid down in regard to cases in which High Court will exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction of quashing proceeding at any stage - This Court in State to which both of us were parties have dealt with this question at length and enunciated law listing out the circumstances under which High Court can exercise its jurisdiction in quashing proceedings - Petition is dismissed
C.R. Sarma, J.
By this criminal petition, filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short, Cr.P.C.), the petitioner, who is one of the accused persons, in Dispur P.S. Case No. 891/2012, under Sections 120(B)/419/468/420/471 of the Indian Penal Code (for short, IPC),has prayed for quashing the FIR, dated 07.05.2012, which has given rise to the said P.S. case.
(2) The petitioner, along with her husband, namely, Sri Pranab Kumar Sharma, who is also one of the accused persons in the said P.S. case, were the Managing Director and the Director respectively of a Private Limited Company, namely, M/s Landmark Establishment Pvt. Ltd.
The respondent No. 3 i.e. the informant in the said P.S. Case No. 89/2012, as the owner of a plot of land, agreed to offer his said land for development.
(3) The said Company, on 02.12.2003, entered into an agreement with the respondent No. 3, for developing a plot of land, as mentioned in the schedule to the said agreement, for the purpose of construction of multi storied building for commercial and residential purpose, as per the terms and conditions of the said agreement and agreed to provide 18% of the constructed area i.e. flats in the proposed multi storied building to the private respondent i.e. the owner of the said land. It was also agreed that the respondent No. 3 i.e. owner of the land, will extend all necessary cooperation for obtaining loan and financial assistance by the said Company for the purpose of construction of the building in question and in selling the flats in the proposed building.
The said agreement was signed by Sri Pranab Kumar Sharma i.e. husband of the petitioner, in his capacity as Chairman and Managing Director of the said Company as second party to the agreement and the respondent No. 3 as first party in his capacity as owner of the land.
(4) On the basis of the said agreement and the subsequent Power of Attorney, executed by the respondent No. 3, the Company aforesaid proceeded with the construction, after obtaining loan of Rs.1,00,80,000/- from the Housing and Urban Development Corporation Ltd. (for short, HUDCO). The loan was obtained on personal guarantee of Sri Pranab Kumar Sharma, Managing Director and the petitioner as Director of the Company. The acceptance letter of the said loan was signed by the petitioner and her said husband.
(5) On 26.03.2012 (Vide DRTG-426 dated 28.03.2012), the Registrar of the Debt Recovery Tribunal (for short, DRT), Guwahati, in connection with OA No. 63/2012, filed by the HUDCO, issued summons to M/s Landmark Establishment Pvt. Ltd., Sri Pranab Kumar Sharma, Smti Rita Sharma and Md. Masrur Hussain i.e. the private respondent No. 3, indicating that the applicant had filed an application under Section 19 (3) of the Recovery of Debts due to Bank and Financial Institution Act, 1993 for realization of an amount of Rs.2,67,19,810/-, being the loan amount taken by them.
By the said summons, the petitioner and others were summoned to appear and submit show-cause against the prayer of the applicant.
(6) After receipt of the said summons, the respondent No. 3 filed the instant FIR, with the Officer-in-Charge, Dispur Police Station, on 07.05.2012. In the said FIR, it has been alleged that, from the summons received in an Application No. 63/2012 ( HUDCO –Vs.- M/s Landmark Establishment Pvt. Ltd.), he came to know that Sri Pranab Kumar Sharma and the petitioner, in collusion with some unscrupulous bank officials, obtained bank loan fraudulently and dishonestly by preparing false documents by forging his signature and impersonating him before the bank authority.
In the said FIR, the informant i.e. the respondent No. 3, who was the owner of the said land, clearly stated that the documents, relating to the loan, were not prepared by him. He further averred that the fact regarding fraudulently obtaining the loan came to his knowledge only after receipt of the said summons in Application No. 63/2012 aforesaid. By filing the said FIR
Dale & Carrington Invt. (P) Ltd. and Another Vs. P.K. Prathapan and Others
Gunmala Sales (P) Ltd. Vs. Anu Mehta
Rajiv Thapar and Others Vs. Madan Lal Kapoor
Union of India and Others Vs. B.R. Bajaj and Others
State of U.P. and Others. Vs. Surendra Kumar
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.