Back
2020 Supreme(J&K) 576
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR AT JAMMU
Sanjay Dhar, J.
(Through Virtual Mode)
Dinesh Gupta and Anr.
Versus
State and Anr.
CRMC No.189/2009, IA No.211/2009, IA No.196/2009, IA No.203/2009, CrlM No.451/2019 [01/2019] in CRMC No.190/2009, IA No.210/2009, IA No.204/2009, IA No.197/2009, CrlM No.450/2019 [01/2019]
Decided on 14.12.2020
Appearing Counsel:
For the Petitioner(s):Mr. Abhinav Sharma, Advocate
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Aseem Sawhney, AAG
The court emphasized the need for evidence to support allegations in an F.I.R. and highlighted the power of the court to quash proceedings if the prosecution is manifestly attended with malafides and maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive.
Headnote:
F.I.R. - Alleged Misuse of Public Money - J&K Cr.PC - Sections 420, 467, 468 - Summary: The court disposed of two petitions challenging F.I.R. No. 331/2009 for offenses under Sections 420, 467, and 468 RPC. The case involved allegations of collusion and misuse of public money by the petitioners. The court analyzed the facts, finding no interference in the investigation of the F.I.R. against one petitioner, while quashing the proceedings against the other petitioner due to lack of evidence. The court also directed the Inspector General of Police to supervise the investigation and ensure its conclusion within two months.
Fact of the Case:
The case involved a written complaint alleging collusion and misuse of public money by the petitioners. The complaint detailed a criminal conspiracy to fraudulently raise a loan and misuse the funds. The petitioners challenged the F.I.R. on grounds of abuse of process, lack of evidence, and personal grudge.
Finding of the Court:
The court found no interference in the investigation of the F.I.R. against one petitioner, while quashing the proceedings against the other petitioner due to lack of evidence. The court also directed the Inspector General of Police to supervise the investigation and ensure its conclusion within two months.
Issues: The issues included the validity of the F.I.R., the role of the petitioners in the alleged offenses, and the motive behind filing the complaint.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the lack of evidence to support the allegations in the F.I.R. against one petitioner, and the presence of malafides and vengeance in the complaint against the other petitioner.
Final Decision: CRMC No. 189/2009 was allowed, quashing the proceedings of the F.I.R. against one petitioner, while CRMC No. 190/2009 was dismissed. The Inspector General of Police was directed to supervise the investigation and ensure its conclusion within two months.
Judgment
Sanjay Dhar, J.—By this judgment, two petitions, under Section 561-A of J&K Cr.PC challenging F.I.R No. 331/2009 for offences under Sections 420, 467 and 468 RPC registered with Police Station, Gandhi Nagar, Jammu filed by above named petitioners are proposed to be disposed of.
2. The facts giving rise to the filing of these petitions are that on 01.12.2009, Police Station, Gandhi Nagar, Jammu received a written complaint from respondent No. 2 alleging therein that the petitioners herein are in collusion and misusing the public money by using their position and authority. As per the complaint, in the year, 2001, the petitioner-Kuldeep Kumar Gupta, while working as Branch Manager, Ware House Branch of the Citizen’s Cooperative Bank Ltd. hatched a criminal conspiracy to rob the bank by fraudulently raising loan of Rs. 10 lakhs in favour of one Sh. Rajinder Kumar. It was averred in the complaint that as per the norms of the Bank to raise loan of Rs. 10 lakhs, a security deposit of at least Rs. 20 lakhs is required, whereas, in the instant case, the borrower had produced collateral security in the shape of land measuring 14 kanals 06 marlas situated at Village Gatta Gajansoo, which was valuing only about Rs. 1.5 lakhs. It was alleged that the petitioner-Kuldeep Kumar Gupta hatched a deep rooted conspiracy with Sh. Rajinder Kumar and got the valuation of the property in question done from an approved valuer of the Citizens Cooperative Bank Ltd., M/S Khosla and Co., who exaggerated the value of the land to the tune of Rs. 20, 02, 000/-. It was further alleged that the petitioner Kuldeep Kumar Gupta himself exaggerated the value of the land in the capacity of Branch Manager and recommended sanctioning of loan worth Rs. 10 lakhs in favour of Rajinder Kumar. The complaint further goes on to state that after getting the necessary sanction, M/S Rajinder Kumar and Co. withdrew money from the loan account on the basis of fake performa bills and the loan money was never used for the purpose for which it had been sanctioned.
3. According to the complaint, the fake performa bills were arranged by the petitioner-Kuldeep Kumar Gupta. It was further stated in the complaint that the account became a non performing asset as the loan was not repaid and the then administrator of board of Citizen’s Cooperative Bank Ltd. directed proper verification of collateral security by the competent authority, who vide his report dated 05.11.2005 stated the valuation of the collateral security as Rs. 1.45 Lakh only. It was further alleged in the complaint that the present Chairman of the Citizen’s Cooperative Bank, petitioner-Dinesh Gupta is trying to hush-up the matter and settling the case by giving heavy rebate so as to erase the sins of the petitioner-Kuldeep Kumar Gupta for heavy consideration which can be ascertained by sustained interrogation. On the basis of this complaint, the F.I.R which is subject matter of challenge of afore titled two petitions came to be registered by police station Gandhi Nagar and investigation of the case was set into motion.
Case of Petitioner-Dinesh Gupta
4. According the petitioner, he is the Chairman of Citizen’s Cooperative Bank Ltd. and when he was elected as a Director, he had to face stiff opposition from various persons who lost election to him. It is further averred that when the petitioner convened a conference, which was attended by Registrar, Cooperative Societies, all Directors of the Bank, Officers and employees of the bank, respondent No. 2, who was President of Citizen’s Cooperative Bank, subordinate staff association raised slogans, misbehaved and defamed the bank as well as its management. It is further averred that respondent No. 2 was trying to interfere with the functioning of the bank by raising illegal demands and that he held the press conference in which he leveled defamatory allegations against the management of the bank including the petitioner. According to the petitioner, because of these a
