For quashing criminal proceedings, allegations must clearly establish participation and responsibility; mere supervisory roles or lack of direct involvement do not suffice for culpability.

Judgment :

Chittaranjan Dash, J.

1. Heard learned counsels for both the Parties.

2. By means of these applications, the Petitioner seeks to invoke the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. for quashing of the criminal proceedings arising out of G.R. Case Nos. 3966 of 2006 and 3969 of 2006 pending before the learned S.D.J.M., Bhubaneswar, wherein the learned Court has taken cognizance of the offences under Sections 420 , 468, 471, 418 and 120-B of the IPC by orders dated 05.01.2007 and 19.01.2007 respectively.

3. The background facts, as emerge from both CRLMC Nos. 3115 and 3116, are that on 01.10.2006, a common informant, namely Rashmi Ranjan Mohapatra, Manager (Legal) of ICICI Bank Ltd., Bhubaneswar, lodged written reports before the IIC, Kharvelnagar Police Station alleging fraudulent availment of vehicle loans by borrowers in collusion with Direct Sales Agencies (DSAs) and others, resulting in wrongful loss to the Bank. In one case, it was alleged that borrower Sarifuddin Khan, sourced by M/s D.P. Marketing, availed a loan for a Mitsubishi Lancer under Loan- cum-Hypothecation Agreement No. LUBBS00003797517 for Rs. 4,36,000/-. The borrower submitted attested copies of documents which, upon verification, were found to be forged, the vehicle being already registered and hypothecated elsewhere. In the other case, it was alleged that borrower Bhubanananda Panda, sourced by M/s Grey Marketing & Finance managed by Dipti Das, availed a loan for a Chevrolet Optra LX under Loan-cum-Hypothecation Agreement No. LUBBS00005506605 for Rs. 4,50,000/-. The documents submitted were later found to be false, as the registration number corresponded to a Bajaj motorcycle registered in another person’s name. On the basis of these two complaints, Kharvelnagar P.S. Case No. 282/06 gave rise to G.R. Case No. 3966 of 2006, in which cognizance was taken by the learned S.D.J.M., Bhubaneswar vide order dated 05.01.2007, and Kharvelnagar P.S. Case No. 285/06 gave rise to G.R. Case No. 3969 of 2006, in which cognizance was taken vide order dated 19.01.2007. In both matters, charge-sheets dated 05.01.2007 were submitted against the petitioners and others for offences under Sections 420 , 468, 471, 418 and 120-B IPC.

4. Mr. Parija, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the Petitioner, inter alia, submitted that the Petitioner is a highly qualified professional, having obtained his post-graduate degree with First Class distinction and an MBA degree from the University of Wales, U.K. He further submitted that the Petitioner joined ICICI Bank on 12.06.2001 as Sales Manager (Personal Loan and Credit Card) and thereafter worked in various wings of the Bank. In recognition of his performance, the Petitioner was promoted to the post of Area Credit Manager (Car Loan) to oversee operations in three States, namely, Orissa, Chhattisgarh and Jharkhand, covering 12 Credit Processing Agencies. Under his supervision, the business volume averaged around Rs. 32 crores per month, processed from nearly 2,000 files (Computerised Appraisal Memos) monthly.

It is further submitted that the allegations made in the FIR as well as in the charge-sheet, which form the basis of G.R. Case No. 3966 of 2006, even if taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety, do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the Petitioner. According to Mr. Parija, the uncontroverted allegations in the FIR and charge-sheet, even when read with the statements of witnesses recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and the documents relied upon, do no