The court determined that charges against the petitioner lacked sufficient independent evidence and quashed the proceedings, asserting that mere recommendation of loans without fraudulent intent does not constitute criminal liability.

ORDER :

A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA, J.

This criminal original petition is filed for quashment of the proceedings in C.C.No.1323 of 2020 pending on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.VII, Coimbatore, for brevity “the Trial Court”

2. The facts in brief leading to the filing of this criminal original petition can be given in a nutshell as follows:

2.1 Prosecution case:

The petitioner, during his tenure as Assistant General Manager of the second respondent bank between 01.03.2018 and 31.12.2019, by entering into a criminal conspiracy with certain independent borrowers, empanelled Engineers and Expert Valuers of the second respondent bank and also some building and construction companies, sanctioned Agricultural Small Scale Industries Loans to 11 beneficiaries for establishment of 11 poultry farms, thereby, causing a loss to the tune of Rs.33,89,39,480/-, by projecting non-existent poultry farms, deliberately inflating the market value of the lands offered as security, fabricating and submitting false account statements, forging documents and fabricating completion reports of buildings which were never built and producing false invoices and fictitious records qua purchase of machinery and equipment for poultry farms.

2.2 Hence, on the complaint dated 25.01.2020 lodged by the second respondent bank, an FIR was registered on the same day in Cr.No.3 of 2020 on the file of the first respondent police for the offences under Sections 120-B, 409, 420, 467, 468 and 471 of IPC against 33 accused, arraying the petitioner as A1.

2.3 The first respondent police, after completing the investigation, filed a final report on the file of the Trial Court for the aforesaid offences and also Section 109 IPC, which was taken cognizance as C.C. No.1323 of 2020.

2.4 Seeking quashment of the aforesaid proceedings in C.C.No.1323 of 2020 on the file of the Trial Court, this criminal original petition has been filed.

3. Mr. R. Vivekananthan, learned counsel for the petitioner, inter alia, made the following submissions:

3.1. Even considering the averments in the charge sheet at their face value, the alleged offences cannot be made out as against the petitioner, who, in his capacity as Assistant General Manager of the second respondent bank, has merely recommended sanction of 11 loans and it was Sivachandran (L.W.5) and Sermakani (L.W.6), Appraisers, who processed the loan documents and recommended sanction of loans by issuing appraisal reports, which were eventually sanctioned by the higher officials, viz., Subramanian (L.W.3) and Narendran (L.W.4) – Regional Managers, and surprisingly, these four officials were not arrayed as accused.

3.2. During his tenure as Assistant General Manager of the second respondent bank, the petitioner has recommended over 40 loans, out of which, only 11 loans were declared as NPAs, in pursuance whereof, proceedings under the SARFAESI Act were initiated and properties offered as collateral security by the borrowers were proceeded against and the second respondent bank has recovered the loans advanced from the borrowers.

3.3. In the light the Periodical Report dated 31.07.2020 submitted by the second respondent bank to the Reserve Bank of India which is a statutory declaration qua 11 borrowers aftermath the registration of the FIR on 25.01.2020, wherein, it has been unequivocally stated that no fraudulent activity has occurred in the accounts of the 11 borrowers, the allegations levelled in the complaint become baseless and expose the mala fides on the part of the second respondent bank in launching