The court emphasized that the power under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. should be exercised to prevent abuse of the process of court and to secure the ends of justice, and that quashing of criminal proceedings is called for only in specific circumstances.

JUDGMENT :

(Prayer: Petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., to call for the records and quash the FIR in Crime No.522 of 2019 on the file of the 1st respondent police station in so far as the petitioners are concerned.)

1. This Criminal Original Petition has been filed seeking the relief to quash the FIR registered in Crime No.522 of 2019 on the file of the 1st respondent police, in so far as the petitioners are concerned.

2. Heard Mr.A.M.Rahamath Ali, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners as well as Mr.S.Karthikeyan, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the 1st respondent police and Mr.P.Saravana Sowmiyan, learned counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent/complainant bank and perused the materials available on record.

3. The petitioners are arrayed as Accused Nos.5 to 11 in Cr.No.522 of 2019, on the file of the 1st respondent police. Upon the complaint given by the 2nd respondent bank, as usual by following the order passed by the jurisdictional Magistrate, under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C, the said FIR stands registered against the petitioners.

4. The case of the petitioners before this Court is that in the complaint filed by the 2nd respondent bank, the Authorised Officer of the Bank of India, R.S.Puram Branch, Coimbatore, had averred that the Accused Nos.1 and 2 are the husband and wife and borrowers of the loan from the de facto complainant bank, for which Accused No.3, representing the Accused No.4- Firm [M/s. Spring Fields Shelters Private Limited], was the guarantor. For availing the loan of Rs.77,90,000/-, Accused Nos.1 to 4, produced valid Construction Agreement and Sale Agreement, entered into between them for the purpose of purchasing the Flat No.106 (Block No.10) 1st Floor, admeasuring 483 sq.ft of Undivided share of land and 720 sq.ft. of super Built up area. The loan availed by them was not repaid and thus, the loan account has become NPA. The implication of the petitioners in the alleged crime is malicious and without any material and there is also no scope for collection of any further materials against the petitioners. According to the petitioners, the FIR and the connected investigation as far as the petitioners are concerned, is not maintainable.

5. In support of the petition filed by the petitioners, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would contend that in the loan availed by the Accused Nos.1 and 2, the petitioners herein have not signed as a guarantor, whereas only the Accused Nos.3 and 4, have signed as guarantors. In fact the petitioners being the land owners, not entered into any agreement with bank and there is no privity of contract between the petitioners and the 2nd respondent bank. In the absence of any documents and representations, it cannot be said that the petitioners also with a dishonest intention created a forged document and committed the offence of cheating.

6. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would further contend that in the complaint preferred before the Judicial Magistrate No.II, Coimbatore, nothing was averred against the petitioners and therefore, registering the case against the petitioners is nothing but an abuse of process of law and accordingly, they prayed to allow this Criminal Original Petition and to quash the FIR, as far as the petitioners are concerned.

7. Per contra, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the 1st respondent Police, would submit that since an order of stay was granted by this Court, the investigation has not commenced so far and therefore, the 1st respondent, have no knowledge in respect to the agreement having by the petitioners with the 2nd respondent bank.

8. The learned counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent bank would contend that only on the belief that the petitioners entered into a Joint Venture Agreement with Accused Nos.3 and 4, the 2nd respondent bank sanctioned a loan to the 1st and 2nd respondent. Accordingly, petitioners are also liable to pay the amount due to the bank. In fact,