Punjab-Haryana High Court
Hari Om Bansal vs State Of Punjab And Another on 1 February, 2012
Author: Ritu Bahri
Bench: Ritu Bahri
Criminal Misc. No. M- 3898 of 2008 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
Criminal Misc. No. M- 3898 of 2008
Date of decision:-01.2.2012
Hari Om Bansal
...Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab and another
...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RITU BAHRI
Present:- Mr. K.D.S. Sodhi, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. Abhishek Chautala, AAG Punjab.
Mr. Ravinder Singh, Advocate
for respondent No.2-Punjab National Bank.
RITU BAHRI J.(Oral)
The petitioner is seeking quashing of FIR No.117 dated 29.9.2005 under Sections 420,465,467,468,471 and 120-B IPC, registered at Police Station Ahemdgarh, District Sangrur.
This FIR has been registered after the inquiry conducted by the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Malerkotla vide his report dated 08.6.2005. According to the inquiry report, for the wrong entry in the revenue record jamabandi of village Rohira and for obtaining loan in this case, Major Khan alias Ajhar Khan village Rohira and the concerned employees of Punjab National Bank, Kanganwal have been found to be main accused. During inquiry, statements of Sunil Kumar Manager PNB, Kanganwal, Karnail Singh Revenue Patwari Halqa Rohira, Jagdev Singh Revenue Patwari Halqa Rohira now Jitwal Kanal were recorded and with regard to loan, photo-copies of bank record Criminal Misc. No. M- 3898 of 2008 -2- and revenue record were obtained. During inquiry, from the bank record it was found that the party who obtained loan produced copy of jamabandi for the year 1998-99 of Village Rohira dated 16.11.2000 and the other requisite certificates and bills. After this Nasar Khan son of Bagga Khan, Yasin Khan, Ajhar @ Gajhar Khan sons of Nasar Khan resident of Rohira in the presence of Hari Om Bansal, Manager PNB Kanganwal, executed the registered mortgage deed No.1512 dated 4.12.2000 regarding land measuring 15 bighas comprised in khewat No.154, Khatoni No.342 and Girdawari Khasra No.1020/6-5, 1022/2- 10, Nasar Khan, Bagga Khan resident of Rohira for taking loan of Rs.50,000/- under the Kisan Credit Card Scheme got executed deed No.1513 dated 4.12.2000 for 5 bighas of land comprised in Khewat No.154 Khatoni No.342 and Girdawari Khasra No.1047/5-0 and Yasin Khan, Ajhar Khan @ Mazhar Khan sons of Nasar Khan resident of Rohira for obtaining loan of Rs.50,000/- under the Kissan Credit Card Scheme got executed deed No.1514 dated 4.12.2000 for 5 bighas of land comprised in Khewat No.154 Khatoni No.342 and Girdawari Khasra No.1046/5-0 in the office of Joint Sub Registrar Ahmedgarh in favour of Punjab National Bank Branch, Kanganwal.
Regarding mortgage of the land in favour of PNB Branch Kanganwal, Rapat No.74,75,76 dated 5.12.2000 were made by Halqa Patwari Rohira, Jagdev Singh. Thereafter, on the PNB Form No.762 dated 5.12.2000, Nasar Khan, Yasin Khan and Azhar Khan @ Mazhar Khan submitted loan applications and on the recommendations of Harmesh Pal Field Officer PNB Branch Kanganwal to pass the loan, Hari Om Bansal Manager Kanganwal passed tractor loan of Rs.2,99,000/- on 6.12.2000 in the name of Nasar Khan, Rs.50,000/- on 09.12.2000 and loan of Rs.50,000/- under the Kissan Credit Card Scheme in the Criminal Misc. No. M- 3898 of 2008 -3- name of Yasin Khan and Azhar Khan @ Mazhar Khan on 22.12.2000.
On perusal of the revenue record, it was found that in the Kafiat column of jamabandi for the year 1998-99 of village Rohira vide Rapat No.189 dated 1.2.1997 there is entry of stay of Khewat No.152-153-154 by Additional District Judge. As per Roznamcha Wakiati Halqa Rohira, it was found that Major Khan son of Nasar Khan resident of Rohira was given copy of jamabandi for the year 1998-99 and copy of girdawari 2 pages in total 3 pages on 13.8.2000 a Rapat No.74,75,76 dated 5.12.2000 regarding bank loan were not found to have been entered in the revenue record, but Rapat No.74 dated 2.11.2000, Rapat No.75 dated 3.11.2000 and Rapat No.76 dated 4.11.2000 were found to have been entered in the record. Regarding copy of jamabandi for the year 1998-99, Village Rohira, Khata No.154, Khatoni No.342 and Girdawari Khasra No.1020, 1021, 1022, 1044, 1045, 1046, 1047 dated 16.11.2000, which are entered in the record of PNB Branch Kanganwal, Jagdev Singh Revenue Patwari told that this copy is in his hand nor it bears his signatures.
On enquiry, it was found that before passing the loan, the officials of Punjab National Bank Branch Kanganwal were to inquire into the original revenue record, which was not done by the officials of PNB Branch Kanganwal nor the bank officials of PNB Branch Kanganwal got entered Rapat No.74,75,76 dated 5.12.2000 in the revenue record in their presence whereas forged Rapat entry has been done in the bank record. Azhar Khan @ Major Khan son of Nasar Khan resident of Rohira and the officials of PNB Bank Branch Kanganwal are found accused. The DSP Malerkotla agreed with the report No.516/CE dated 8.6.2005 of Sub Divisional Magistrate.
Criminal Misc. No. M- 3898 of 2008 -4-
The petitioner-Hari Om Bansal was posted as Branch Manager when the loan was disbursed. As per bank norms, before granting loan, Manager is required to insist for a report from Bank's approved lawyer. Para 2.2 of Chapter II relating to Mortgages- Immovable Property reads as under :-
"2.2. A full report on the title should be obtained from the bank's approved lawyer. Where non- encumbrance certificate from the office of Assurances is not produced, Bank's lawyer should make a search of records and ensure that no prior mortgage, charge or any other encumbrance on the property exists. The result of this search should be incorporated in his report. Enquiries must also be made regarding the terms on which they have the possession, a complete record must be kept of all such reports and investigations."
The petitioner was required to get approval from the Bank's lawyer and as per Rule 2.2 the petitioner got approval report (Annexure P-2) from Shri Mohinder Kumar Modi, who was approved lawyer of the Bank. In condition No.3 of Annexure P-2 it has been mentioned that the immovable properties are not subject to any attachment or any process of Courts. Non-encumbrance Certificate issued by Joint Sub Registrar, Ahmedgarh dated 10.12.2000 is Annexure P-3. This certificate shows that from 4.12.1988 to 3.12.2000, the aforesaid property is non-encumbrance except the following. After receiving the verification from both the sources as contemplated under Rule 2.2, the Manager has approved the file and thereafter the loan was disbursed in the year 2000.
The FIR in question has been registered in September 2005 after more than 5 years of the loan transaction. During the Criminal Misc. No. M- 3898 of 2008 -5- pendency of the investigation in the FIR, the bank has compromised the matter with the borrowers and the whole amount has been paid back to the bank. No objection Certificate (Annexure P-5) in this regard has been issued by the bank on 08.2.2008. The petitioner being the Manager of the Bank was not required to personally verify the title deeds of the said property. After getting the approval (Annexure P-2) and Annexure P-3 the requirement of the rules has been complied with and continuous of criminal proceedings would be an abuse of process of Court.
Counsel appearing for the bank has admitted that the bank has since recovered the amount and issued the NOC (Annexure P-5).
The official respondents have taken a stand in the written statement that had the petitioner did not make any inquiry personally from the office of Tehsildar, Ahmedgarh for getting the mutation entered and attested in favour of the Bank before disbursing the loan amount then the fact regarding stay order in respect of land in question would have come to the notice regarding stay order given by the Civil Court, then the question of disbursing the loan amount does not arise and in this way the petitioner is responsible for granting and disbursing the loan as he has connived with the main accused without verifying the revenue record.
The petitioner has placed reliance on the Manual of the bank relating to Mortgagee Rule 2.2 whereby the requirement of law was that he should get the certificate from the Bank's lawyer and non- encumbrance Certificate from the office of Sub Registrar. The petitioner has got both the certificates, one from the Lawyer and the other from the Sub Registrar (Annexures P2 and P3 respectively) and thus, as per the manual of the bank he was not required to make any Criminal Misc. No. M- 3898 of 2008 -6- independent inquiry from the office of Revenue Authorities. The stand taken by the official respondent was that registered deed No.1514 dated 4.12.2000 at the time of sanction of the loan was not entered by the bank Manager immediately after sanction of the loan. The bank Manager vide letter dated 08.3.2004 had made a request to Sub Registrar to enter the mutation. There is no explanation for delay of four long years for doing the needful. The petitioner was Manager with this bank and after disbursement of loan in the year 2000 he was transferred from Kanganwal Branch in January 2002. The delay if any cannot be attributed to the petitioner.
As per law laid down by State of Haryana and others versus Bhajan Lal and others 1992 Supp (1) Supreme Court Cases 335 and S. Khushboo v. Kanniammal & Another, 2010 (2) R.C.R. (Criminal) 793. The law relating to quashing of criminal proceedings is summed up as follows:-
"F. Criminal Procedure Code, Section 482 - Quashing of Criminal Proceedings - Law summoned up:-
(1)Where the allegations made in the First Information Report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused.
(2)In a case where there is sufficient evidence against the accused, which may establish the charge against him/her, the proceedings cannot be quashed. (3)Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking Criminal Misc. No. M- 3898 of 2008 -7- vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge.
(4)Criminal proceedings can be quashed but such a power is to be exercised sparingly and only when such an exercise is justified by the tests that have been specifically laid down in the statutory provisions themselves.
(5)High Court while exercising its inherent jurisdiction should not interfere with a genuine complaint but it should certainly not hesitate to intervene in appropriate cases. In fact it was observed."
The petitioner who was Branch Manager of the Bank at the time of sanction of the loan had obtained the requisite information, vide Annexure P-2 and P-3). As per Rule 202 of Chapter II relating to Mortgages-Immovable Property applicable to the Bank, he had obtained the requisite information. The requirement of making any more personal investigation was not required from the Revenue Authorities. The petitioner was transferred in January, 2002 from from Kanganwal Branch. The registered deed No.1514 dated 4.12.2000 at the time of sanction of the loan was entered by the bank with the Sub Registrar, vide letter dated 08.3.2004.The petitioner after being transferred in January, 2012 cannot be held liable for any delay. The bank has settled the dispute and recovered the amount and has issued the No Objection Certificate (annexure P-5). In view of the conditions laid out in Bhajan Lal's case (supra), no useful purpose would be served in carry out the criminal proceedings when the bank has already issued 'No Objection Certificate'.
In view of the above facts, the petition is allowed and FIR Criminal Misc. No. M- 3898 of 2008 -8- No.117 dated 29.9.2005 under Sections 420,465,467,468,471 and 120-B IPC, registered at Police Station Ahemdgarh, District Sangrur is quashed with all consequential proceedings arising therefrom qua petitioner.
February 01, 2012 ( RITU BAHRI ) Vijay Asija/G.Arora JUDGE