Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
Rakesh Kainthla, J.
Vipan Kumar - Petitioner
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh and anr. - Respondents
Cr. MMO No. 610 of 2022
Decided On : 26-03-2025
(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 420, 406, 467, 468, 471, and 120B - Quashing of FIR - Allegations of fraud in loan sanctioning process - Petitioner, a bank manager, sanctioned a loan based on forged documents, leading to criminal charges - The FIR was filed after the informant failed to repay the loan, claiming the documents were forged by the petitioner and co-accused - The court found that the allegations in the FIR constitute a cognizable offence and cannot be quashed. (Paras 2, 25)
(B) Quashing of FIR - Principles - The court may quash an FIR if the allegations do not constitute a cognizable offence or if there is an express legal bar to the proceedings - The court emphasized that it cannot conduct a mini-trial at this stage and must accept the allegations at face value. (Paras 9, 10, 12)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner was accused of sanctioning a truck loan based on forged documents, resulting in the informant losing his mortgaged land without receiving the truck. The informant alleged threats from the petitioner and co-accused. (Paras 2, 3)
Findings of Court:
The court determined that the allegations in the FIR constitute a cognizable offence, and the petition for quashing was dismissed. (Paras 25)
Issues: The main issues included whether the FIR disclosed a cognizable offence and the validity of the allegations against the petitioner. (Paras 10, 25)
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the FIR's allegations, taken at face value, disclose a cognizable offence, and the petitioner cannot avoid liability based on the informant's claims of forgery. (Paras 12, 25)
Result: Petition dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
Rakesh Kainthla, J.
The petitioner has filed the present petition for quashing FIR no. 47 of 2019, dated 03.04.2019, registered in Police Station Gagret, Una, H.P and criminal proceedings arising out of it.
2. Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to the present petition are that the informant made a complaint to the police asserting that the present petitioner was posted as Bank Manager in Kangra Central Cooperative Bank Branch Office at DaulatpurChowk, District Una. He told the informant to take a loan to purchase a truck for Rs.17,90,000/-. The informant mortgaged his land and paid the margin money to purchase the truck. The petitioner, in connivance with Ravi Kumar Jaswal and Lalit Jaswal, obtained the signatures of the informant on various documents. The petitioner was not taken to any showroom. The amount of the truck loan was transferred to the accounts of Lalit and Ravi. Rs.4,08,000/- deposited in the informant’s account was also withdrawn. The informant got no truck, and his land was also mortgaged. The petitioner and co-accused threatened the informant that he and his family members would be killed in case the matter was reported to any person. The police registered the FIR and conducted the investigation. It was found after the investigation that Lalit Jaswal had prepared a forged quotation in connivance with Ravi Kumar. The petitioner sanctioned the loan on the forged quotation. A bank draft of Rs.17,90,000/- was sent to M/s Khalsa Enterprises Jalandhar Road Hoshiarpur, and there was no agency in the name of M/s Khalsa Enterprises Jalandhar Road Hoshiarpur. Admitted and specimen handwriting of Lalit Jaswal and Ravi Jaswal were taken. As per the report of RFSL, the signatures and handwriting of Lalit Jaswal matched the forged quotation. The handwriting of Ravi Kumar matched with the voucher. The loan was transferred to Sukhwinder Singh, who withdrew the amount. His specimen signatures matched the signatures on the vouchers. The petitioner did not verify whether any such agency existed or not; hence, the charge sheet was filed before the Court for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 420, 406, 467, 468, 471 and 120B of IPC.
3. Being aggrieved from the registration of the FIR, the petitioner has filed the present petition asserting that the informant reached the Bank along with Ravi Kumar and Lalit Jaswal to avail the term loan facility. He opened a Saving Bank Account and a loan account in the bank. He executed a mortgage deed in favour of the Bank to avail the loan of Rs.13,90,000/-. He also produced a proforma invoice for getting the loan. The petitioner found all the documents in order and sanctioned the loan of Rs.13,90,000/-. The informant paid margin money of Rs.4,00,000/-. The amount of Rs.17,90,000/- was transferred to M/s Khalsa Enterprises, payable at Axis Bank, Shimla, for the purchase of the vehicle. Khalsa Enterprises issued a sale certificate showing the delivery of the vehicle to Kewal Krishan-informant. The informant handed over a temporary registration certificate to the Bank. He failed to produce the permanent registration number and insurance certificate. He failed to pay the loan instalments. The bank issued a letter asking him to deposit the amount. The informant lodged the FIR as a counterblast to the demand raised by the Bank. The complainant is an educated person. He had signed all the documents after reading them. The allegations in the FIR are false. He had voluntarily executed all the documents in favour of the Bank. The petitioner cannot be held liable for the forged invoice produced by the informant. The informant caused a loss to the Bank and filed a false complaint to avoid his liability. Therefore, it was prayed that the present petition be allowed and the FIR be quashed.
4. The petition is opposed by filing a reply by the respondents making preliminary submissions regarding lack of locus standi and the petitioner having concealed the material facts from the Court
The court held that allegations in the FIR constituted a cognizable offence, and the petition for quashing the FIR was dismissed.
The court held that an FIR cannot be quashed if it discloses cognizable offences, and allegations of mala fide do not suffice for quashing proceedings.
The court ruled that an FIR cannot be quashed based on allegations of mala fides if it discloses cognizable offences, emphasizing the necessity of a trial to assess the truth of the allegations.
The court upheld the FIR against the petitioner, ruling that sufficient allegations existed to constitute cognizable offences, and the truth of these allegations could not be evaluated at the quashin....
The court held that allegations in the FIR disclosed a prima facie case under Section 170 IPC, and quashing was not warranted at this stage.
The court ruled that allegations in the FIR constituted a cognizable offence, and mere repayment of funds does not negate the wrongdoing.
The court cannot quash an FIR based on allegations of mala fides or insufficient evidence; it must determine if the FIR discloses a cognizable offence.
The court held that allegations arising from a civil dispute cannot constitute a criminal offence, and continuation of such proceedings amounts to an abuse of the legal process.
The court held that misrepresentation in a land sale transaction constituted cheating under Section 318(4) of BNS, and the FIR could not be quashed as it disclosed a cognizable offence.
The court cannot assess the truthfulness of allegations in an FIR at the quashing stage; it must determine if the FIR discloses a prima facie case for proceeding.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
