JUDGMENT

1. The present application is filed for quashing the FIR bearing C.R. No.I-681 of 2002 registered with Naranpura Police Station, Ahmedabad (Annexure-A), supplementary charge-sheet No.12 (Annexure-C) and all further proceedings of Criminal Case No.4693 of 2006 pending in the Court of the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Court No.9, Ahmedabad.

2. Heard learned advocate Ms. Simran Pahwa for Thakkar and Pahwa Advocates for applicant, learned advocate Mr. Jayesh Kotecha for respondent No.3 and learned APP Mr. Ronak Raval for the State.

3. Learned advocate Ms. Pahwa for the applicant submits that respondent No.2, who is the Director of Sabarmati Co-operative Bank, lodged the complaint against 14 accused, wherein the present applicant was not named. It is further submitted that by way of a supplementary charge-sheet, the name of the present applicant was revealed and allegations were made by the complainant against the present applicant to the effect that, though in Current Account No.2605 balance was not maintained, then also overdraft facilities were obtained. It is further submitted that allegations against the present applicant are that the property which was given as mortgage was sold without taking the consent of the bank. It is further submitted that subsequently, the applicant has cleared the dues and respondent No.2 has issued a No due Certificate on 27.03.2023. It is submitted that the other co-accused, against whom similar and identical allegations were made in the quashing petitions, were granted relief and their applications were allowed, resulting into the impugned FIR and consequential proceedings being quashed. It is submitted that, although an allegation of forgery has been made, the present applicant has not forged any document. It is further submitted that in view of the No Due Certificate issued by the bank, the continuation of the proceedings would be a gross abuse of the process of law. In that background, the present application is required to be allowed.

4. Per contra, learned advocate Mr. Jayesh Kotecha for respondent No.3 does not dispute with regard to the No Due Certificate issued by the bank and submitted that appropriate orders be passed.

5. Learned APP Mr. Raval has vehemently opposed the present application.

6. Considering the allegations made in the FIR, wherein the present applicant was not named. However, by way of a supplementary charge-sheet bearing No.3535 of 2006 dated 18.12.2002, the applicant came to be named as accused No.2. As per the allegations made in the charge-sheet, the following averments are reproduced hereinbelow:

“Accused No. (2) opened Current Account No. 2605 in the name of 'Arora Carriers' around the year 1996. Despite, there being no balance in the said account, amount of ₹7,00,000/- has been withdrawn through temporary overdraft in collusion with the bank ofÏcer in the 1997 thereby has committed an offence. Furthermore, by obtaining a Hypothecation Cash Credit loan of ₹8,00,000/- under Loan Account No. H. Y. 20 in the name of 'Arora Carriers', the accused utilized the said credit amount to settle the dues of Current Account No. 2605. Thereafter sold the property placed under mortgage without notifying the bank, and failed to repay the loan amount along with interest, totaling ₹30,11,677/- , the accused committed an offence of embezzlement.”

It is not in dispute that subsequently, the applicant has cleared the dues and a No Due Certificate has also been issued by respondent No.2.

6.1 At this stage, this Court has referred to the decision rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Nikhil Merchant V/s CBI, reported in (2008) 9 SCC 67, wherein Hon’ble Apex Court has held as under:

“30. In the instant case, the disputes between the Company and the Bank have been set at rest on the basis of the compromise arrived at by them whereunder the dues of the Bank have been cleared and the Bank does not appear t

Click Here to Read the rest of this document