JUDGMENT

A. K. PARICHHA, J. : This is an application under Section 482, Criminal Procedure Code (in short, ‘Cr.P.C.’) for quashing the proceeding in Vigilance G.R. Case No.11 of 2005, correspond¬ing to Vigilance F.I.R. No.11 of 2005 pending in the Court of learned Special C.J.M., Vigilance, Bhubaneswar. The Deputy Super¬intendent of Police, Vigilance Cell, Bhubaneswar lodged an F.I.R. alleging that the petitioner who is working as Company Secretary of Orissa Rural Housing Development Corporation Ltd., Bhubaneswar (in short, ‘ORHDC’) and the Managing Director of the said Corpo¬ration entered into a Criminal conspiracy with a builder firm, namely “M/s. Raj Bahadur Associates, Vishakhapatnam” and in procession of that conspiracy sanctioned and disbursed a loan of Rs.20 lakhs to that firm abusing their official position. Basing on the said F.I.R. Bhubaneswar Vigilance P.S. Case No.11 of 2005 was registered under Section 13 (2)/13 (1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act read with Section 120-B of I.P.C. and investi¬gation was undertaken. Aggrieved by such registration of the case and investigation, the petitioner has filed the present applica¬tion for declaring the registration of the case illegal and for quashing of the investigation and the proceeding of the case.

2. Mr. Govind Das, learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was working as Compa¬ny Secretary of the O.R.H.D.S., Bhubaneswar and his official role was confined to the documentation part of the loan transactions and he was in no way concerned with the sanction or disbursement of the loan to M/s. Raj Bahadur Associates, Vishakhapatnam and for that reason the case under Section 13(2)/13(1)(d) of the P.C. Act and Section 120-B of I.P.C. is not maintainable against him. In this regard, Mr. Das indicated several Clauses of the power of attorney, copy of the deed of the agreement, the legal heir cer¬tificate, copy of Khatian, copy of the additional agreement and copies of the Board of Resolution. According to him, when the loanee M/s. Raj Bahadur Associates, Vishakhapatnam had executed the required documents, and the title deeds of the property mort¬gaged had been deposited and valid power of attorney holder had offered collateral security, sanction and disbursement of the loan can never be termed as illegal or product of any criminal conspiracy. Mr. Das, specifically submitted that the allegations and materials put-forth by the Vigilance authorities do not constitute any case against the petitioner for the alleged of¬fences and so quashing of the F.I.R. and investigation in Bhuba¬neswar vigilance P.S. Case No.11 of 2005 is necessary.

3. Mr. D. Mohapatra, learned Standing counsel (Vigilance) on the other hand submitted that ORHDC is constituted with the primary object of providing cost effective fire proof houses to the poor persons of rural areas and there was no scope for the said Corporation to grant hefty loans to the urban builders like M/s. Raj Bahadur Associates, Vishakhapatnam. He submitted that sanction and disbursement of loan of Rs.20 lakhs to M/s. Raj Bahadur Associates, Vishakhapatnam itself suggests that the petitioner and the Managing Director of the Corporation were involved in Criminal conspiracy with that firm. Mr. Mohapatra further submitted that the loanee M/s. Raj Bahadur Associates, Vishakhapatnam was already a defaulter and had also not executed proper documents of mortgage, collateral security etc, for the loan applied for but the petitioner recommended its application for the loan, as a result, the loan was sanctioned and public funds were wasted. Mr. Mohapatra further submitted that there are clear allegations of official misconduct and criminal conspiracy against the petitioner in the F.I.R. and investigation is going on into the said allegations and so at this juncture quashing of the F.I.R. and investigation would amount to throttling the process of investigation and depriving the investigating agency fr