Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
P.N. PRAKASH, J.
S.A. Kumar & Others - Appellant
Versus
State, Sub Inspector of Police, Central Crime Branch, Salem & Another - Respondent
CRL.O.P. No. 24291 of 2017 & CRL.M.P. No. 14034 of 2017
Decided On : 30-11-2020
FIR Quashing - Criminal Conspiracy - Section 420 IPC, SARFAESI Act, 2002 - [Section 420 IPC, SARFAESI Act, 2002] - The court discussed the delay in FIR registration, the suppression of facts by the accused, and the necessity for a full-fledged investigation. The court emphasized that delay in FIR registration cannot be a ground for quashing the FIR and highlighted the need for police investigation to unravel the transactions and allegations made by the petitioners against the bank officials.
Fact of the Case:
The ICICI Bank filed an FIR against the partners of Nandhi Dall Mill for offenses under Section 420 IPC. The accused filed a petition to quash the FIR, claiming that the allegations were mainly against another individual and that the bank officials were involved in the loan transactions.
Finding of the Court:
The court dismissed the petition, emphasizing the need for a full-fledged investigation to unravel the transactions and allegations made by the petitioners against the bank officials.
Issues: Delay in FIR registration, suppression of facts by the accused, involvement of bank officials in the loan transactions.
Ratio Decidendi: Delay in FIR registration cannot be a ground for quashing the FIR. The court emphasized the need for a full-fledged investigation to unravel the transactions and allegations made by the petitioners against the bank officials.
Final Decision: The Criminal Original Petition is dismissed, and the police are directed to proceed with the investigation in accordance with the law.
JUDGMENT :
(Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., to call for the records and quash the F.I.R. bearing Cr.No.12 of 2017 dated 28.08.2017 on the file of the Sub Inspector of Police, Central Crime Branch, Salem as against the petitioners.)
1. This matter is taken up for hearing via video conferencing.
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties will be referred to by their names.
3. On a complaint dated 05.02.2016 lodged by one Shankar Balasubramanian, Chief Manager and Authorised Signatory of ICICI Bank, Chennai, the Central Crime Branch, Salem registered a case in Crime No.12 of 2017 on 28.08.2017 for offences under Section 420 IPC against Kumar (A1), Jayanthi (A2), Arun (A3) and Sundareshwaran (A4), for quashing which, Kumar (A1), Jayanthi (A2) and Arun (A3) are before this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
4. Facts appearing on the face of the record are as under:
Nandhi Dall Mill in Salem is a partnership firm in which, Kumar (A1), Jayanthi (A2) and Arun (A3) are partners. The ICICI Bank gave cash credit loan of Rs.15 Crores (hereinafter called “loan-1”) in December 2010. The partners did not give their own property as security, but, the property of one Smt. Ashwathamma sitatuted in Karnataka was given as security. Smt.Ashwathamma had authorised one Lakshman Reddy by a Power of Attorney dated 18.12.2010 to sign the mortgage papers on her behalf.
4.1. Nandhi Dall Mill was given a short term loan of Rs.15 Crores (hereinafter called as “loan-2”) in March 2011, for which, they gave the property of one Sundareshwaran (A4) as security. In February 2012, the limits of Rs.15 Crores in respect of loan-1 was enhanced to Rs.22 Crores by ICICI Bank.
4.2. Nandhi Dal Mill defaulted in repayment and the account was classified as Non-Performing Asset in March 2014 and a sum of Rs.30,13,06,198/- was due to the bank as on 28.12.2015.
4.3. When the bank initiated Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Securities Interest (SARFAESI) Act, 2002, proceedings, it came to light that the property given by Sundareshwaran (A4) was not free from encumbrance inasmuch as a partition suit in O.S.No.18 of 2010 was pending and further, he had alienated the property by executing a Deed of Sale registered as document No.5490 of 2011 dated 02.11.2011 in favour of one Velumani and his wife Selvi.
4.4. The grievance of the ICICI Bank is that Sundareshwaran (A4) had suppressed the pendency of the partition suit at the time of giving the property as security and has further created encumbrance on the property by executing a Sale Deed registered as document No.5490 of 2011 dated 02.11.2011 in favour of one Velumani and his wife Selvi, though the original Title Deeds are with the bank.
4.5. As stated above, one Shankar Balasubramanian, Chief Manager of ICICI Bank lodged a complaint dated 05.02.2016 in the office of the Commissioner of Police, Salem. The police did not register an F.I.R. immediately, but, started conducting enquiries. Apprehending arrest, Kumar (A1), Jayanthi (A2) and Arun (A3) filed Crl.O.P.No.10824 of 2016 for anticipatory bail and this Court, by order dated 19.05.2016, directed the police not to arrest them till 06.06.2016. On 06.06.2016, the anticipatory bail petition was closed on the representation made by the Prosecutor that an enquiry was conducted by the police and the same has been closed on the ground that the dispute is civil in nature. This was recorded and the anticipatory bail was closed by this Court on 06.06.2016. However, the police registered a regular F.I.R. on 28.08.2017 and therefore, Kumar (A1), Jayanthi (A2) and Arun (A3) once again filed a petition in Crl.O.P.No.19149 of 2017 for anticipatory bail and this Court, by order dated 14.09.2017, granted them the relief on the ground that the accused/petitioners have paid Rs.25 Crores to the bank and that the allegations in the
AI
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
