ORDER :

1. The lawyers have no objection with regard to the proceeding, which has been held through video conferencing today at 10.30 A.M. They have no complaint in respect to the audio and video clarity and quality.

2. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

3. The petitioners, in this application, filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. have prayed for quashing the order taking cognizance dated 15.06.2015, passed by the Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Jamshedpur in G.R. No. 950 of 2014. By virtue of the aforesaid order, cognizance has been taken for the offence punishable under Sections 406, 409, 420, 467, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code. Further the order dated 27.04.2018, passed in the aforesaid case has also been challenged. By virtue of the aforesaid order, process under Section 82 Cr.P.C. has been issued against the petitioners in connection with the aforementioned case.

4. This case arises out of a FIR. The FIR was registered for allegedly committing an offence punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468 & 471 of the Indian Penal Code, wherein these two petitioners are the accused.

5. FIR was registered as Bishtupur P.S. Case No. 113 of 2014. The informant is the Branch Manager of the Central Bank of India, TISCO Gate Branch, Bishtupur, Jamshedpur, (herein after referred to as “the Bank”). In the FIR, it has been alleged that a sum of Rs. 5 lakh was sanctioned as loan to these petitioners, who happens to be owners of a shop. Later, the amount of loan was enhanced from Rs. 5 lakhs to Rs. 10 lakhs. By way of security, a sale-deed bearing deed no. 5721 dated 27.10.2006 was deposited by the petitioners in the Branch of the bank. The Bank later on obtained a certified copy of the sale-deed and it was found that the said sale-deed, which was deposited with the Bank, was a forged document. Thus, it was concluded that the petitioners obtained the loan of Rs. 10 lakhs by depositing a forged document. The loan ultimately became bad and an amount of Rs. 9,11,501/- became due, which the petitioners did not pay. On the aforesaid background, the FIR being Bishtupur P.S. Case No. 113 of 2014, was registered.

6. The petitioners, thereafter, approached this Court by filing an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. being Cr. M.P. No. 909 of 2014, wherein they challenged the FIR. The said application was withdrawn by the petitioners on 23.04.2015, wherein a liberty was given to these petitioners to raise all the points at an appropriate stage. In the meantime, the investigation proceeded and police ultimately filed a charge sheet against these petitioners.

7. On the facts narrated in the charge sheet, and on finding a prima facie case, the Court took cognizance of the offence punishable under Sections 406, 409, 420, 467, 468, 471 of the Indian Penal Code, vide order dated 15.06.2015. Notice was issued to these petitioners, but it is the case of the petitioners that they had not received any notice as such they could not appear before the court. It is further case of the petitioners that since they could not appear before the Court, coercive steps were taken against them and ultimately vide order dated 27.04.2018 process under Section 82 Cr.P.C. was issued. It has been mentioned that prior to issuance of process under Sections 82 Cr.P.C., bailable and non-bailable warrant of arrest was also issued.

8. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, in support of their contention submits that no criminal offence is made out in the instant case. He submits that this is a case of non-payment of loan, which the petitioners had taken from the Bank and for not repaying the loan amount, a criminal case cannot be instituted. He submits that the Central Bank of India had also filed a certificate case bearing No. 50/BL/2014-2015, before the Certificate Officer at Jamshedpur, claiming recovery of the loan amount. It is the case of the petitioners that they appeared in the said certificate proceeding and they offered to return the amount and ultimately, they settled t