Back
2010 Supreme(Mad) 5056
High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.M. AKBAR ALI
Gajapathy Rajan & Others
Versus
State By The Inspector of Police & Others
CRL.O.P. Nos. 16705, 19155, 19664 & 19883 of 2010 & M.P.Nos.1 of 2010 (3 in nos.), 2 of 2010 & 3 of 2010(2 in Nos.)
Decided On : 26-11-2010
For the Petitioners:R. Shanmugasundaram, Senior Counsel for Tha. Sirish Chowdhary, A. Mohamed Ali, Advocates.
For the Respondents:R1 - Hasan Mohamed Jinnah, APP, R2 - K. Sukumaran for J. Suresh, Advocates.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that if there is sufficient evidence against the accused persons, the proceedings cannot be quashed.
Headnote:
Bank Officials - Alleged Fraudulent Creation of Mortgage - Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 420, 465, 468, 471 - Summary
Fact of the Case:
The case involved allegations of fraudulent creation of mortgages and fabrication of documents by bank officials. The complainants accused the bank officials of cheating and forging documents, leading to the initiation of criminal proceedings.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that there was prima facie evidence of the involvement of the petitioners in fabricating the equitable mortgage documents. It held that the investigation was still in the preliminary stage and the petitioners had not made a case for quashing the FIR.
Issues: The main issues revolved around the creation of mortgages, fabrication of documents, and the involvement of bank officials in fraudulent activities.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that if there is sufficient evidence against the accused persons, the proceedings cannot be quashed. It also highlighted that the defense material need not be considered at the stage of quashing the FIR.
Final Decision: The court dismissed all the petitions and closed the connected Mps.
1. The petitions are filed seeking a direction to call for the records pertaining to the cases in Cr Nos.155/2010, 32 of 2009, on the file of the 1st respondent and quash the same.
2. The petitioners in all these petitions are the accused in two complaints given by the respondents/defacto-complainants before the 1st respondent Inspector of Police, Central Crime Branch, Egmore. For convenience sake, the petitioners in all these petitions are mentioned as petitioners and the 2nd respondent in all these petitions are mentioned as complainants.
3. One M/s N.S Investments availed a loan from the Bank in 1989. On 31.5.1995, M/s Blue Jaggers Estate Private Limited took over the liability of M/s N.S. Investments. A No due certificate was issued by M/s N.S. Investments. While taking over the liability of N.S Investments, the Indian Bank, the creditor of the proprietary firm promised and represented that they will sanction a loan of Rs.2 crores to the Blue Jaggers Estate Private Limited. Therefore, the complainant, who is the Managing Director of Blue Jaggers handed over title deeds pertaining to the layouts of various places. However, the bank sanctioned only a sum of Rs.10,00,000/-as loan. The bank also refused to issue No Objection Certificate for the plots sold by the complainant at Harita Enclave at Tambaram. The bank initiated recovery proceedings before DRT Chennai. The bank also initiated SARFEASI proceedings. The deposit of title deeds in respect of 12.19 acres of land situated at Aathanur village, which is claimed to be made on 21.9.90 by the bank is a forged one.
4. The complainants found that the bankers have cheated and created false documents of mortgages and they have fabricated and created false records and therefore, they have given a complaint against the bank officials to the Central Crime Branch, Chennai.
5. The Central Crime Branch is now seized of the matter and have registered a case in Cr. No.155/2010.
6. Another complaint was given by one Janarthanan, one of the plot owners of Krishnapuri layout alleging that M/s Blue Jaggers Private Limited have created documents with the connivance of the officials of the Indian Bank to create a mortgage illegally. This complaint was registered in Cr.No.32 of 2009.
7. Pending investigation, the proposed accused viz., the officials of the Indian bank approached this court by filing the present applications to quash the FIR pending on the file of the CCB.
8. Mr.R. Shanmugsundaram, learned senior counsel appearing for the Bank Officials submitted that the petitioners are the bank officials of the Indian Bank and they have initiated proceedings for the recovery of the dues payable on a mortgage by deposit of title deeds. The learned senior counsel pointed out that the proceedings are pending before DRT and notice was issued for possession under SARFAESI Act. The learned Senior Counsel also pointed out that the petitioners who are all high officials in the bank have been implicated by the debtor and a owner of a plot as if the bank officials have cheated and forged the documents. The learned senior counsel pointed out that on the face of the complaint there is no prima-facie case made out and the FIRs are liable to be quashed.
9. On the contrary, Mr.J. Suresh, appearing for the complainant would submit that the complainant has not created any mortgage of the property which is a layout named as Krishnapuri layout. The learned counsel pointed out that while taking over the liability of M/s NS Investments, the bank officials have insisted the complainants company to take over the liability and promised to extend Rs.2 crores of loan. The liability of the said NS Investments was of the year 1990 whereas the taking over of the same was in 1995. The learned counsel also pointed out that the officials have created the documents as if the complainant has mortgaged his property for the loan created in the year 1990 and has proceeded to bring the property to sale. The learned cou
