Back
2014 Supreme(Jhk) 245
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
R.R. Prasad, J.
Pushpa Singh & Ors. – Petitioners
Versus
State of Jharkhand & Anr. - Opp. Parties
Cr. M.P. No. 1635 of 2010
Decided on: 14.02.2014
For the petitioners: M/s. Anil Kumar, D.K. Chakraborty, Adv.
For the CBI : Md. Mokhtar Khan, ASGI
For O.P. No. 2 : Mrs. K.P. Choudhary, Adv.
The power to quash criminal proceedings must consider the nature and gravity of the crime, impact on society, and the possibility of conviction, especially for serious offences.
Headnote:
Forgery - Quashing of FIR - Indian Penal Code - Section 120B, 420, 467, 468, 471
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners were charged under Section 120B read with Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 of the Indian Penal Code for obtaining a loan through forged and fabricated collateral security. The accused challenged the order taking cognizance of the offences.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the accused secured the loan by producing forged sale deeds and manipulated the measurement of the land. The court dismissed the application for quashing the FIR, stating that the continuation of the criminal proceeding was not an abuse of the process of the Court.
Issues: The issues revolved around the submission of forged and fabricated collateral security, the repayment of the loan, and the applicability of quashing the criminal proceeding.
Ratio Decidendi: The court referred to relevant provisions of the Code, including Section 320, and held that the power to quash criminal proceedings must consider the nature and gravity of the crime, impact on society, and the possibility of conviction. It emphasized that serious offences cannot be quashed based on compromise between the offender and the victim.
Final Decision: The application for quashing the FIR was dismissed.
Initially this application had been filed for quashing of the first information report of R.C. Case No. 6(S)/2010A.H.D.R, registered under Section 120B read with Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 of the Indian Penal Code, against the petitioners. Subsequently, on submission of the charge sheet, when cognizance of the offences, as aforesaid, was taken against the petitioners vide order dated 01/02/2011, the said order has been challenged.
2. The case of the C.B.I. is that one written complaint was filed by one Farukh Rashid Bokhari, the then Senior Manager, Allahabad Bank, Zonal Office, Ranchi, alleging therein that petitioner no. 1 Smt. Pushpa Singh, the Managing Director as well as the Directors namely, Saket Kumar Singh (Petitioner no. 2) and Abhijit Kanti Dam (Petitioner no. 3) of M/s Sai Healthways (Incorporation) Private Limited, entered into a conspiracy among themselves and with other persons and in furtherance of the said conspiracy they, on the basis of the forged and fabricated collateral security, induced Officers of Katrasgarh Branch of Allahabad Bank to sanction term loan of Rs. 1,80,00,000/with cash credit limit of Rs. 15,00,000/. The loan was sanctioned for the purpose of purchasing hospital equipments and other allied assets. Further it has been alleged that the Managing Director and both the Directors got the title deeds of Guarantors / Mortgagors submitted to the Bank for getting the loan sanctioned. After the loan was sanctioned, the borrower company never care to deposit the installments as a result of which loan became sticky and, thereby, the Bank treated the loan and the interest of the amount of Rs. 2,26,93,794. 58/as well as the cash credit limit of Rs. 9,26,085.00/as Non-Performing Assets (NPA). Thus, it has been alleged that the accused persons committed offences under Section 120B read with Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioners as well as the Guarantors/Mortgagors. On such complaint, a case was registered by the CBI as R.C. Case No. 6(S)/2010A.H.D.R. The matter was taken up for investigation. During investigation it was found that the Company did default in repaying the loan amount. However, at the request of the borrowers repayment had been rescheduled but in spite of that, payment was not made. The bank was unable to realize the amount from the mortgaged properties as the sale deeds deposited by the borrowers/guarantors were found to be doctored, whereby actual acreage of purchased land was substantially inflated in the manner given below:
Sl No. Name of the mortgage and sale deed No. Inflated/Deflated acreage of land shown in the deed Actual acreage of land as per the report of CO Acreage of land inflated to the extent of Remarks
1. Smt. Pushpa Singh, 5947 dtd 31.08.06 5 acres 5 decimal 4 acres 95 decimal, Evidence has been collected to prove that the rent receipt and mutation
paper submitted by the borrower are forged and fabricated.
2. Smt. Pushpa Singh 5975 dtd 01.09.2006 5 acres 5 acres ………. Though the acreage of land has not been inflated but it stand ascertained that the land is in the possession of Sh. Gopal Ojha and not in the possession of Pushpa Singh
3. Shri Tirath Singh Choudhary 13898 dtd. 01.06.1970 10 acres 10 decimal,
9.90 acres Evidence has been collected to prove that Land Possession Certificate submitted by the borrower is forged. That apart, Sh. Tirath Singh Chowdhary does not happen to be the mortgagor. The borrower used his name as guarantor. In addition to this opinion of Central Finger Print Bureau is awaited on the point.
4. Shri Saket Singh, 5953/04 dtd. 29.09.04 5 acres 55.75 acres ………. Evidence has been collected to prove that this plot of land is in legitimate possession of Kandu Majhi & 13 others and not in the possession of Bokaro Educational Society. Proof has also been brought on record to prove that the rent receipt and mutation certificate submitted by the borrower are forged and fabricated.
5. Shri Dilip Kumar Gope 2047/91
