JUDGMENT :

SUBHASH VIDYARTHI, J.

1. Heard Sri Rishad Murtaza, the learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Anurag Kumar Singh, the learned counsel for the CBI and perused the record.

2. By means of the instant application filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. the applicant has prayed for quashing of the cognizance order and the summoning order dated 27.01.2023 and the entire proceedings of Criminal Case No. 126506 of 2022 arising out of FIR No. RC2(E)/2022/CBI/SCB/Lucknow, under Sections 120B, 420, 406 I.P.C. and P.S. CBI/SCB/Lucknow, pending in the Court of the learned Special Judicial Magistrate, CBI (Pollution), Lucknow and to quash the order dated 28.02.2023 whereby non-bailable warrants have been issued against the applicant.

3. On 16.03.2022, a Deputy General Manager of Small Industries Development Bank of India (SIDBI) sent a complaint to the CBI against 10 named persons and some unknown persons, stating that M/s JML Marketing Pvt. Ltd. through its promoter Kimti Lal Arora, had obtained a loan from the Bank by offering collateral security of a property of co-accused persons Rajinder Chawla and Varinder Chawla situate at Ambala Cantt. Being situated in cantonment area, the property could not have been mortgaged, as the guarantors had merely occupancy rights in respect of the property and they did not own the property.

4. On 14.12.2022 the CBI submitted a charge-sheet against 8 persons, including the applicant, inter-alia stating that prior to creation of mortgage, a title investigation report in respect of the property was obtained from the applicant, who was the bank’s approved valuer. The applicant had submitted a title report dated 17.01.2015 stating that the property fell under the Municipal Corporation of Ambala and the names of the owners were shown in the records of the Municipal Corporation. The applicant had certified that the title of the property was valid, clear and marketable.

5. The charge-sheet further states that the bank had obtained another report from another approved valuer Ramesh Grover of M/s Grover Architects, who had submitted a valuation report dated 12.01.2015 assessing market value of the property as Rs. 11.20 Crores. The bank’s guidelines mandate that in case the value of the property exceeds Rs. 3 Crores, another valuation should be obtained and another yet approved valuer Jitendra Sharma, a partner of M/s Sharma and Associates, had given a report dated 20.01.2015 opining the valuation of the property to be Rs. 11.82 Crores.

6. On 08.10.2019 the account was declared as NPA, and thereafter the bank obtained another report from its valuer Dr. Samir K. Monga, who opined on 28.11.2019 that the value of the property was nil as only occupancy rights are transferred in cantonment area and ownership of the property is not transferred. However, yet another valuer Sri H.P. Mittal has assessed the market value of the property as Rs. 5.29 Crores on 10.09.2020. The charge-sheet mentions that subsequently the mortgagors had transferred the mortgaged building in favour of their wives, but that allegation does not relate to the applicant.

7. The charge-sheet alleges that the applicant had given a clean chit in respect of the borrower’s right over the land in question pursuant to a criminal conspiracy.

8. The learned counsel for the applicant Sri Rishad Murtaza has submitted that the property in question had been acquired by the co-accused/guarantors through a sale deed in the year 1982. The loan in question was taken by the co-accused/borrowers in the year 2015. The applicant had submitted his report on the basis of the documents provided to him, after exercise of due diligence. When the bank’s other approved valuers also differed in assessing the value of the property, it cannot be assumed that at the time of making the mortgage the applicant had given a wrong report regarding the value of the property with a criminal intent.

9. Sri. Rishad Murtaza has next submitted that there is no allegation that the applicant had any int