Back
2015 Supreme(Mad) 3079
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
R. MALA, J.
P. Jebakumar & Ors. - Petitioners
Vs.
The Inspector of Police, City Crime Branch, Palayamkottai, Tirunelveli City & Anr. - Respondents
Crl. O.P. (MD) No. 6795 of 2013 & M.P. (MD) Nos. 1 & 2 of 2013, Crl. O.P. (MD) No. 8079 of 2014 & M.P. (MD) Nos. 1 & 2 of 2014, Crl. O.P. (MD) No. 15792 of 2014 & M.P (MD) Nos. 1 & 2 of 2014
Decided on : 09.10.2015
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioners: Mr. T. Lajapthi Roy
For the Respondents:Mr. K. Anbarasan, Govt. Advocate (Crl. Side) for R1, Mr. R. Ramanlal for R2
The duty of bank managers to verify property ownership before sanctioning loans and the prima facie case of criminal conspiracy in such instances.
Headnote:
Loan Fraud - Criminal Conspiracy - IPC 420, 423, 120(b) r/w 34 - The court discussed the ingredients of Sections 420, 423, and 120(b) of the Indian Penal Code and their application to the case. It highlighted the duty of bank managers to verify the ownership of properties before sanctioning loans and the prima facie case of criminal conspiracy. The court directed the disposal of the case within six months.
Fact of the Case:
The case involved a loan fraud where the accused, including bank managers, were alleged to have colluded to sanction a loan based on properties not belonging to the borrower.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the ingredients of Sections 420, 423, and 120(b) of the Indian Penal Code were prima facie made out, and it was not a fit case for quashing the charge sheet. It directed the disposal of the case within six months.
Issues: The issues revolved around the fraudulent inclusion of properties in a loan application, the duty of bank managers to verify property ownership, and the prima facie case of criminal conspiracy.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the duty of bank managers to verify property ownership before sanctioning loans and the prima facie case of criminal conspiracy in such instances.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the petitions to quash the charge sheet and directed the disposal of the case within six months.
The petitioners have come forward with these petitions to quash the C.C.No.86 of 2013 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate Court No.I, Tirunelveli, for the offences under Sections 420, 423 and 120(b) r/w 34 IPC.
2. The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are arrayed as A3, A2 and A1 respectively. He further submits that the A1 is none other than the own brother of the de-facto complainant. While availing loan from A2/Bank Manager, A1 has given collateral mortgage and deposited the title deed on execution of the deed dated 08.01.2007. At that time inadvertently, he has included the property allotted to his brother/de-facto complainant. The said factum was brought to the knowledge of the UCO Bank Officials by the defacto complainant by way of complaint dated 29.06.2009 and the same was duly forwarded to the 1st accused for rectification. On receipt of the same, A1 also executed a deed of rectification dated 22.09.2009. Thereafter, the case in Crime No.24 of 2009 has been registered for the offences under Sections 420, 423 and 120(b) r/w 34 IPC. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the ingredients of Section 420 IPC have not been made out and the loan amount has already been repaid. Therefore, the petitioners pray for quashing of the charge sheet.
3. The Bank Officials/A2 and A3 submit that they are not parties to the alleged offence as they only sanctioned the loan on the basis of the legal advice given by the Advocate attached to their Bank and they were not aware of inclusion of the properties of the defacto complainant in the deed. They further submit that they have not committed any criminal conspiracy in the alleged offence. Hence, they also pray for quashing the charge sheet.
4. Resisting the same, the learned Counsel appearing for the second respondent submits that the properties are an ancestral properties and the first accused is the own brother and that the properties were divided between two brothers and a partition deed was registered in the year 1986. 'A' Scheduled properties were allotted to the de-facto complainant and R2 and 'B' Schedule properties were allotted to A1. The only point raised is that A1, at the time of executing the memorandum of deposit of title deeds, wrongly included the properties allotted to his brother/the de-facto complainant. As soon as the same was brought to his knowledge, A1 immediately, executed a rectification document so nothing survives.
5. Per contra, the learned Counsel appearing for the second respondent also submits that after mortgaging of the property, A1 has settled the property in the name of his son in the year 2008, which shows the fraud played by A1. So, the ingredients of Section 420 have made out. It is further submitted that inspite of the fact that the properties mortgaged by A1 is not sufficient to sanction the loan amount, the Bank Officials colluded together with A1 and sanctioned the loan after including the properties allotted the share to the de-facto complainant and therefore, the ingredients of Section 420 IPC have been made out. Hence, he prays for dismissal of these petitions.
6. Considering the rival submissions and on perusal of the typed set of papers, it is seen that A1 and the de-facto complainant are own brothers. The properties are ancestral properties; in the year 1986, there was a partition between the brothers in which 'A' Scheduled properties were allotted to the de-facto complainant and the 'B' schedule properties to A1. When A1 applied for loan, he has included the properties allotted to the de-facto complainant on 08.01.2007 and on coming to know of the said fact, the second respondent immediately gave a complaint to the Bank Manager. Thereafter, rectification deed has been executed, thereby A1 deleted the properties allotted to the de-facto complainant. But according to the de-facto complainant, the properties allotted to the de-facto complainant have not been deleted.
7. On per
