The court emphasized the statutory duty of the police to register a case and proceed with the investigation upon receiving information disclosing a cognizable offence, as per Section 154(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The court also highlighted the Magistrate's authority to apply his mind to the police report under Section 173 Cr.P.C., 1973 and take a definite view on whether to take cognizance of an offence against an accused person.

JUDGMENT/ORDER

Shekher Dhawan, J. - Present petition by Kaushik Chatterjee under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 is for quashing of FIR No. 452 dated 14.09.2018 under Sections 120B, 34, 406, 408, 420 IPC registered at Police Station Civil Lines, Gurgaon and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom.

2. Facts relevant for the purpose of decision of the present petition; that the petitioner has come with the plea that he has been falsely implicated in this case. Petitioner had joined M/s. Capri Global Capital Limited, the complainant-company (for short, "the Company") as its Group Chief Risk Officer on 4.8.2016 and resigned on 30.07.2018. During that period, Anant Saxena, promoter of M/s. Zillion Infra projects Pvt. Limited had applied for business loan for purchase of commercial property. The said application was completed by the Sales department of the Company after meeting the customer. There were two separate valuation reports regarding Unit No. 709. Report was also obtained from empanelled law firm, namely, M/s. Narang & Associates for funding the property. The meeting and personal discussion with the borrower was conducted by Sandeep Arora, -Zonal Credit Head - North jointly with Mayur Teredesai (Head of Credit) and Dahanveer Singh, Regional Sales Manager-Delhi and they had done the documents verification and on the basis of reports available, made recommendation and on that basis, the petitioner approved the proposal which is a formal procedure in normal course of business.

3. After the formal and final approval of the loan, there was a discussion on the legal flow confirmation of title of the property and the property was again visited by Deepak Dixit, Area Technical Manager - Delhi who was responsible for the final clearance of the property. The loan agreement was entered into between the borrower, i.e., Anant Saxena and the Company, i.e., M/s. Capri Global Capital Limited. The disbursement of the loan was processed by Operations department which does not report to the petitioner in its capacity as Chief Risk Officer.

4. Subsequently, Conveyance/Sale deed was executed. Moreso, since November, 2016 till October, 2017, the borrower was paying instalments of the loan obtained from the Company and after payment of 12 instalments, he defaulted in repayment of loan and was declared as NPA on 28.2.2018. After more than an year, the petitioner had received a job from much larger and AAA-rated company, which is also a Multi National with Groups Head Quarter at Singapore and finally the petitioner decided to leave the complainant-Company on 30.07.2018 and joined Fullerton India Housing Finance Company Limited as its Chief Risk Officer. Meanwhile the complainant company had initiated SARFAESI proceedings against the borrower and received an order from District Magistrate. Gurgaon. Meanwhile, the complainant company also filed a complaint with Police Station, Civil Lines, Gurgaon against the borrower and a settlement was arrived at on 17.8.2018 and the borrower committed to pay all the dues over a period of time and eventually close the loan by April, 2019. But the complainant, because of personal grudge with the petitioner, filed a second complaint before the Commissioner of Police, Gurgaon on 11.09.2018 naming the petitioner as co-accused in the said loan and the present FIR (Annexure P/13) was registered. The said FIR was registered without any preliminary enquiry or without any notice for joining the investigation.

5. The petitioner has sought quashing of the FIR, Annexure P/13 on the ground that he has been falsely implicated in this case; the loan was sanctioned as per proper procedure and only formal approval was taken from the petitioner; the borrower committed to pay loan instalments; petitioner had not connived with any other person and there was no material for impleading the present petitioner as an accused and the allegations are baseless. The present FIR is liable to be quashed.

6. Learned senior coun