JUDGMENT

1. The present petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (‘CrPC’) challenging the order dated 06.09.2019 (hereafter ‘impugned order dated 06.09.2019’) passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (ASJ), Rohini Courts, Delhi in Crl. Revision No.174/2019. The petitioner also challenged the order dated 30.05.2019 (hereafter ‘impugned order dated 30.05.2019’)

passed by the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (CMM), Rohini Court, Delhi, in CC No.5281162/2016.

2. The learned ASJ, by the impugned order dated 06.09.2019, had dismissed the revision petition filed by the petitioner and upheld the impugned order dated 30.05.2019, whereby charge under Sections

420/467/468/471 of the IPC was framed against the petitioner.

3. The seminal facts relevant for the purpose of the present petition are as follows:

3.1. FIR No. 37/2009 dated 27.02.2009 was registered at Police Station Economic Offences Wing for offences under Sections 406/420/467/468/471/120B of the IPC at the behest of the complainant, Punjab National Bank, Delhi (PNB) through its authorized person, namely, P D Khurana, who is stated to be the Chief Manager of PNB. It is alleged that one Kamal Kishore Shukla/Accused No. 1 and Shashi Shukla/Accused No. 2(wife of Kamal Kishore), had approached the bank for availing loan facility of CC hypothecation ₹10 lakhs and term loan of ₹14 lakhs, for the purchase of plant and machinery. It is alleged that in lieu of that loan, they mortgaged the property bearing no. 587, Sector-4, Vaishali, Ghaziabad. It is alleged that thereafter, it transpired that the same property having a sale deed dated 24.10.2003, was already mortgaged by Accused No. 1 with GIC Finance, Punjab National Bank, Chander Nagar. It is alleged that GIC Finance also took over the possession of the said property under the provisions of the SARFAESI Act, 2002, and the same was auctioned to one Jitender. It is further alleged that the bank account of Accused No. 1 was declared as Non-Performing Assets (‘NPA’) on 31.03.2007, due to non-payment of principal amount and interest. It is alleged that during the course of the investigation, the sale deed of the property in question was found to be forged.

3.2. Chargesheet in the present case was filed against Accused Nos.1-2. Thereafter, supplementary chargesheet was filed against Late Girish Tyagi/Accused No. 3, Dinesh Chandra Saxena/Accused No. 4, and Raju Garg @ Naveen/Accused No. 5/petitioner.

3.3. It is alleged that during the investigation, qua term loan for the purchase of machines of ₹20 lakhs, Accused No. 1 allegedly had to contribute ₹6 lakhs as margin. It is alleged that thereafter, Accused No. 1 allegedly submitted a quotation dated 02.01.2006 from vendor M/s National Sales Corporation, and also a receipt of ₹6 lakhs with the PNB for the loan. It is alleged that consequently, the said ₹14 lakhs were transferred by the PNB to the account of M/s National Sales Corporation in their account situated at Vijaya Bank, Ghaziabad.

3.4. It is alleged that Accused No. 3, who is stated to be the proprietor of M/s National Sales Corporation, in connivance with the petitioner, withdrew the said amount. It is further alleged that the said firm was found to be a bogus entity having no business of sales/machines as allegedly represented before the PNB. It is stated that Accused No. 3 passed away before he could be arrested.

4. The learned CMM vide the impugned order dated 30.05.2019 had framed charges against the petitioner under Sections 120B read with Sections 420/467/468/471 of the IPC, and observed as under:

“Now coming to the role of accused Naveen @Raju, his role is quite apparent at this stage, qua the withdrawal of amount disbursed by bank in the account of M/s National Sales Corporation. Even the FSL report is in his handwritten on the bearer cheques and it goes against him. “

5. Aggrieved by the order passed by the learned CMM, the petitioner had preferred a revision petition before the learned