A person not named in an FIR cannot challenge it at the stage of FIR, but can challenge the subsequent charge sheet in the same petition.

ORDER :

Sanjeev Prakash Sharma, J.

1. The petitioner by way of this criminal misc. petition prays for quashing of an FIR No. 199/2012 registered at Police Station Jhalra Patan, Jhalawar on 5.9.2012 for offence under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 & 120-B IPC. During the pendency of this petition, the proceedings have been initiated against the petitioner under Section 37 of the Police Act issuing standing arrest warrants against him. Thereafter, the charge sheet has been filed against him under Section 299 Cr.P.C. in absence of the petitioner for offences under Section 420, 467, 468, 471 & 120-B IPC.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Anand Kumar Mohatta & Others v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) Department of Home and Others reported in AIR 2019 SC 210, the petitioner who has assailed the FIR can also challenge the charge sheet if during the pendency of petition it has submitted the charge sheet.

3. Learned counsel submits that although the petitioner was not named in the FIR but since in subsequent investigation, the petitioner has been made as an accused, he is entitled to challenge the FIR as well as the charge sheet. Learned counsel submits that the petitioner was the Manager of the Bank at the relevant time for which the FIR has been registered wherein the allegations levelled are that as many as 65 persons named in the FIR obtained loan by submitting forged documents under Schedule 61. It is alleged in the FIR that the Bank has suffered a loss of Rs. 1,50,00,000/- by wrongfully advanced loan on the basis of false and forged documents to the concerned persons, who have committed fraud with the Bank by misleading the Bank by submitting forged documents of properties which were pledged as mortgage.

4. It is submitted that during the investigation, the police has wrongly misdirected the investigation as against the petitioner who was the Bank Manager and in the charge sheet which has been filed under Section 299 Cr.P.C., the only allegation against the petitioner by the police authorities is that the petitioner had not personally conducted physical inspection of the land of the agriculturist to whom the loan was advanced and therefore wrongly verified the documents.

5. Learned counsel submits that the petitioner was a Manager and was not required to personally conduct physical verification of the land and he was only required to rely upon the report submitted by the legal adviser. Learned counsel has taken this court to the memorandum of understanding entered between the Bank authorities and the concerned Banks wherein the entire responsibility relating to the verification of the documents is rested with the Advocate and the concerned Manager cannot be said in any manner required personally to verify the documents by going in the field which releasing the loan. Thus, the offences under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 & 120-B IPC are not made out as against the petitioner.

6. Learned counsel relies on the judgment passed by the Supreme Court in the case of State of Haryana & Others v. Ch. Bhajan Lal & Others reported in AIR 1992 SC 604 and submits that where the allegations made in the FIR even if they are taken on face value and accepted and their entirety, it did not prima facie constitute the offence. Therefore, the said FIR and further proceedings ought to be quashed.

7. Further, he has relied on the principle laid down in State of Haryana & Others (supra) that in controverting the allegations made in the FIR or complaint if the evidence collected in support of the same does not disclose the commission of any offence and makes out the case against the accused, then the petitioner ought not be forced to face criminal proceedings in the FIR and proceedings ought to be quashed.

8. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the submission of the counsel for the petitioner and submits that the petitioner as a Manager of the Bank was having complete respons