Prima facie involvement in loan fraud via false reports justifies denying discharge despite Section 17A approval.

ORDER :

M. NIRMAL KUMAR, J.

The petitioner/A5 in C.C.No.2 of 2024 facing trial along with five years for the offence under Sections 120(b) r/w. 420, 468, 471 IPC and section 13(2) r/w. 13(1)(a) of Prevention of Corruption Act (PC Act) filed a discharge petition in Crl.M.P.No.6950 of 2024 in C.C.No.2 of 2024. The Trial Court by order dated 03.07.2025 dismissed the same. Against which, the present revision petition filed.

2.The contention of the learned senior counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner is not a named accused in the FIR. A complaint was lodged on 05.09.2022 by the Regional Manager, State Bank of India, Tambaram Branch and a case registered on 27.12.2022 against one K.Baranidharan, Malaivel Sugumaran, K.V.Balamurugan, Murthy Rosigan, Venkataraman and unknown public servants and private persons. On completion of investigation, final report filed against the petitioner and five others. The case projected against the petitioner is that during the year 2019 K.Baranidharan/A1, a loan borrower, Malaivel Sugumaran (A2), Panel Valuer, State Bank of India, K.V.Balamurugan (A3), seller of the property, Murthy Rosigan (A4), Power of Attorney holder, T.K.Balaji (A5), Branch Manager, State Bank of India, Medavakkam Branch and A.Rajaseelan (A6), Manager (Disbursement), State Bank of India, RACPC (Retail Asset Central Processing Centre) Tambaram, all entered into criminal conspiracy at Chennai and other places to cheat State Bank of India, Medavakkam Branch. In pursuance to the conspiracy, the accused persons dishonestly availed Housing Term Loan of Rs.3.33 Crores and Suraksha loan for Rs.19.85 lakhs by using false and fabricated documents, thereby cheated the Bank to the tune of Rs.4,37,63,527/-. Further, in pursuance to the conspiracy diverted the entire loan proceeds to other purpose and not utilised for the purpose for which the loan was sanctioned.

3.The ground on which the petitioner is prosecuted is that the petitioner falsified pre-sanctioned inspection report without proper verification of the documents submitted by A1, the petitioner visited the property on 10.01.2019 and gave a false report that there is no dispute/encumbrance and the seller/A3 was in possession, it is projected earlier owner Madhan Kumar continues to occupy the property. The petitioner forwarded the loan application with false inspection report to SBI RACPC Tambaram for sanction of housing loan, thereby facilitated RACPC Tambaram to sanction housing loan of Rs.3.33 Crores on 07.02.2019.

4. Further the loan amount was misused, wrongly disbursed to A4, petitioner opened an account on 08.02.2019 instead of paying the loan amount to seller/A3 and the loan amount diverted and Demand Draft issued favouring A4. Thus, violated bank norms.

5. The petitioner collected and deposited loan disbursement Demand Draft of Rs.3.33 Crores in the account of A4 on 08.02.2019 even before registration of the property, registration only on 09.02.2019 and thereafter, mortgage, further petitioner permitted withdrawal and re-deposit of Rs.50 lakhs on the same day and issued another Demand Draft of Rs.3.33 Crores on 08.02.2019 by signing in two places by himself, violating the rule requiring signatures of two authorized officers. This Demand Draft which was signed by the petitioner was deposited to the account of A4 on 11.02.2019 and allowed A4 to withdraw Rs.1.45 Crores on 11.02.2019 and 12.02.2019.

6. The learned senior counsel further submitted that the petitioner being the Branch Manager of State Bank of India, Medavakkam Branch and it is only a source bank who forwar