IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 22.12.2021

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.NIRMAL KUMAR

Crl.O.P.No.22510 of 2021

and

Crl.M.P.No.12234 of 2021

N.Thamotharan

... Petitioner

Vs.

1. State of Tamil Nadu rep by its:

The Inspector of Police,

District Crime Branch,

Erode. Cr.No.1/2021.

2. E.Viswanathan

... Respondents

PRAYER: The Criminal Original Petition has been filed under

Section 482 of Cr.P.C.to call for the records and quash the

First Information report in Cr.No.1/2021 pending investigation

on the first respondent herein in respect of this petitioner.

For petitioner :

Mr.A.Thirumaran

For Respondent :

Mr.E.Raj Thilak

No.1

Additional Public Prosecutor

ORDER

The petitioner Manager of Repco Home Finance Ltd.,who is

the seventh accused in Crime No.1 of 2021 for offences under

Sections 120 B, 420, 467, 468 & 471 IPC, has filed this quash

petition.

2.The gist of the case is that the second respondent the

Branch Manager, HDFC bank Ltd., lodged a complaint against one

Jayaprakash and his wife Sridevi, who are the residents of No.5,

Thogai Murugan Nagar, Nallakavundenpalayam, Gobichettipalayam,

Erode District that they had availed loan on the property in

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

Survey Nos.127/2 and 127/4, in Thendral Nagar, Plot No.6 to an

extent of 2334 sq ft. Lakkampatti Village, Gobichettipalayam,

Erode District. This property was mortgaged with Repco Home

Finance Ltd., and since the rate of interest is on higher side,

they approached the defacto complainant to take over the loan.

Thereafter, HDFC Bank issued a cheque for Rs.58,00,000/- by

cheque No.795269 dated 30.11.2018 and on receipt of the cheque,

A1 and A2 cancelled the loan of Repco Home Finance Ltd., and

received the original documents but they did not hand over the

same to HDFC Bank. Whenever the same was questioned, they were

giving evasive answer. Finally, it came to know that the

property has been transferred to the names of A3 to A6, this has

been done in collusion with A7, who handed over the original

documents to A1 & A2 instead of transmitting the same to the

defacto complainant's bank. Hence, the case has been registered.

3.The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner

is that normally, for the loan, the defacto complaint would

write to the other bank or financial institution, while taking

over the already mortgaged loan, to ascertain the facts and also

to hand over the documents. In this case, the petitioner had not

given any NOC as alleged in the complaint. Further, no

communication has been sent from the HDFC Bank. The petitioner

received the Demand Draft and the loan has been discharged by

the lonee viz. A1 & A2. Thereafter, on discharge of the loan,

the petitioner had handed over the documents and he is not aware

of the subsequent development in the property or the

representations made by A1 & A2. Hence, for discharging his

official finance, he had been falsely implicated in this case.

The counsel for the petitioner further submits that the defacto

complainant is a dubious person, his role is to be examined,

which fact have been already informed to the respondent police,

who had not taken any action.

4.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for

the first respondent submits that the petitioner in collusion

with A1 & A2, knowingly received the cheque of HDFC Bank,

discharged the loan and handed over the original documents.

Prior to which, he had given NOC for issuance of loan. Based on

the NOC, the loan was processed by HDFC Bank. The petitioner in

collusion with the other accused had acted in tandem and

thereby, caused loss to the defacto complainant. Further, now

the petitioner raised a point that, HDFC bank not writing to

Repco Home Finance Ltd., is a disputed fact, which has to be

investigated and decided later. If the petitioner has got any

material in