yIN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr.MMO No.424 of 2018 with Cr.MMO Nos.362, 386 & 359 of 2018 Judgment reservHed on: 30.03.2026 Date of Decision: 18.04.2026 _______________________________________________________

1. Cr.MMO No.424 of 2018 f Kailash Chand …….Petitioner Versus State of H.P & another … Respondents

2. Cr.MMO No.362 of 2018 Baljinder Pal Singh …….Petitioner Versus State of H.P & another … Respondents

3. Cr.MMO No.386 of 2018 Manoj Kumar Bansal …….Petitioner Versus State of H.P & another … Respondents i4. Cr.MMO No.359 of 2018 Ankur Sharma …….Petitioner Versus Liaquat Ali Khan … Respondent _______________________________________________________

Coram:

Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge.

Whether approved for reporting? ¹ Yes.

For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Rahul Gathania, Advocate, for the petitioner(s) in Cr.MMO Nos. 424, 359 and

386 of 2018.

Mr. Vijay Arora, Senior Advocate with Mr. Hitansh Raj and Mr. Gaurav Kumar, Advocates for the petitioner in Cr.MMO No.362 of 2018.

1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

For the Respondents: Mr. Rajan Kahol & Mr. Vishal Panwar, Additional Advocate Generals with Mr. Ravi Chauhan & Mr. Anish Banshtu, Deputy Advocates General, for the respondent/State, in all the petitions, except Cr.MMO No.359 of

2018.

Mr. Sumit Raj Sharma, Advocate, for respondent No.2 in Cr.MMO Nos. 424, 362 and 386 of 2018 and for sole respondent in Cr.MMO No.359 of 2018.

_______________________________________________________

Sandeep Sharma, Judge:

Since common questions of law and facts are involved in the above-captioned petitions and the petitioners herein are aggrieved of order dated 02.07.2018, passed by learned Sessions Judge, Nahan, District Sirmour, Himachal Pradesh, in case No. 3-Cr.R/10 of 2016, affirming the order dated 22.12.2014, passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Nahan, Himachal Pradesh, thereby issuing process against the petitioners for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 409, 465, 467, 468, 471 read with Section 120-B of IPC, all the petitions were heard together and now same are being disposed of by this common order.

2. For having bird’s eye view, the quintessential facts, which are common in all the cases, save and except the official positions held by the petitioners in State Bank of India and New India Assurance Company, are that respondent No.2, Sh. Liaquat Ali Khan and Shri Kapil Chaudhary (later on substituted by Ahsan Ullah), were partners of the firm M/s Paradise Packers. The said firm had availed Cash Credit (Hypothecation) and Term Loan from the State Bank of India, Branch Office, Kala Amb, and had mortgaged its property with the aforesaid bank as Security. Subsequently, Sh. Kpil Choudhary retired from the company and in his place, Sh. Ahsan Ullah was inducted as partner. On the request of respondent No.2, Sh. Liaquat Ali Khan and above named Ahsan Ullah, the credit facilities were renewed by the bank. However, p artners of the firm, as named hereinabove, failed to maintain financial discipline, as a result whereof, the loan account became irregular and was ultimately declared as Non-Performing Asset (NPA). Consequently, the bank issued notice dated 26.11.2010 under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act and thereafter took physical possession of the secured assets of the Company. Since respondent No.2 and another partner of Company failed to liquidate the outstanding liability, bank filed O.A No.466 of 2011(Annexure P-11) before the Debts Recovery Tribunal-

1, Chandigarh, for recovery of the outstanding amount.

3. Vide order dated 15.07.2017, afore Tribunal allowed the application of the bank and held respondent No.2 alongwith another partner, jointly and severally liable to pay a total sum of Rs.28, 80,998/- to the bank alongwith costs and current as well as future Interest @15% and @13.75% per annum, respectively with monthly rests on the Term Loan and Cash Credit Account respectively, from the date of filing of