Karnataka High Court
Manjunath M N S/O Narayanappa P. vs State Of Karnataka on 5 August, 2019
Equivalent citations: AIRONLINE 2019 KAR 3139
Author: K.Somashekar
Bench: K. Somashekar
:1:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF AUGUST 2019
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. SOMASHEKAR
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.101821/2018
BETWEEN
MANJUNATH M N S/O NARAYANAPPA P.
AGE: 35 YEARS, OCC: BANK EMPLOYEE,
R/O: MINDANAHALLI VILLAGE,
BHAVANAHALLI POST, MALUR TALUK,
KOLAR DISTRICT, NOW AT UNION OF INDIA
ADIMAL BRANCH, TQ: DEVIKULAM IDUKKI,
KERALA
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI. VYAS DESAI AND
SRI.JAGADISH PATIL, ADVS.)
AND
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
REP. THROUGH STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
THROUGH SANKESHWAR POLICE STATION,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD-580001.
2. SHRI.GAJANAN S/O APPASAHEB PATIL,
AGE: 33 YEARS, OCC: BANK MANAGER,
R/O: C/O. UNION BANK OF INDIA,
BRANCH HEBBAL, SANKESHWAR,
TQ: HUKKERI, DIST: BELAGAVI-590001.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.PRAVEEN K. UPPAR, HCGP FOR R1,
SRI. SHRINIVAS NADAMANI, FOR R2)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482
OF CR.P.C. SEEKING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 04.06.2016
IN TAKING COGNIZANCE IN C.C. NO.393/2016 FOR OFFENCES
UNDER SECTIONS 406, 409, 420 READ WITH SECTION 34 OF
IPC, PENDING ON THE FILE OF PRL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC
COURT, SANKESHWAR, WITH RESPECT OF THE PETITIONER.
:2:
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION
THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned HCGP for respondent No.1 and the learned counsel for the respondent No.2.
2. The factual matrix of this petition is as under:
The petitioner Manjunath M.N. said to be the Bank employee, now working at Union Bank of India, Idukki in Kerala State. The 2nd respondent said to be the complainant and by avocation he is a Bank Manager of Union Bank of India, Hebbal Branch, Sankeshwar, Hukkeri Taluk, Belagavi District. In this petition, invoking the provisions of Section 482 of Cr.P.C., seeking for quashment of the entire proceedings against him in C.C. No.393/2016 for alleging offences punishable under Sections 406, 409 and 420 read with Section 34 of IPC which is pending on the file of the Principal Civil Judge and JMFC Court at Sankeshwar. He has already been stated that 2nd respondent said to be the complainant and made allegation that the borrower of the loan said to have :3: arraigned as accused No.1 and also against the appraiser said to have arraigned as accused. No.2, that accused Nos.1 and 2 have cheated the Bank by furnishing false appraisal report in respect of gold ornaments allegedly pledged as "I) 2 patli bangles, 1 necklace, 1 design chain with locket, 1 finger ring, 1 finger ring studed with white stone and II) Patli pair No.2. Whereas, the borrower from Gold Loan Account I has availed loan in a sum of Rs.88,000/- and from Gold Loan Account II has availed loan in a sum of Rs.1,30,000/-. Thereby caused criminal breach of trust and based upon the complaint filed by the complainant, the Police registered the case at the first instance against the borrowers as well as the appraiser of the bank, while filing the charge sheet by the Investigating Officer, that this petitioner namely Manjunath M.N. being arraigned as accused No.3 in this case.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner taken me through the terms of the gold loan scheme and the only duty cast upon the Bank Manager is to verify the ownership of the applicant, who avails loan, since the duty to check the genuineness of ornament is on approved :4: valuer who has issued the certificate in this regard. Hence, no fault can be found with this petitioner. The complainant Union Bank of India after deliberate internal inquiry has issued a letter strongly recommending for providing legal assistance to the Bank Managers for removal of the name from the charge sheet laid against this accused also. It is further contended that this petitioner is innocent person and the borrower in collusion with the approved valuer has committed fraud on the bank and no criminal allegations against this petitioner. Therefore, the proceedings cannot be continued against this petitioner and if the proceedings are continued against this petitioner, it amounts to abuse of process of law. Therefore, the learned counsel for the petitioner has reiterated the grounds urged in the petition and praying for quashment of the entire proceedings initiated against this accused in C.C. No.393/2016 for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 409, 420 read with Section 34 of IPC.
4. On the other hand, learned HCGP for the State taken me through the averments made in the complaint and also the statements recorded by the Investigating :5: Officer during the course of investigation. The statement relating to the Bank employees and the employee is arraigned as accused No.3, who is the petitioner before this Court seeking quashment. However, during the investigation, the Investigating Officer secured sufficient material to proceed against this accused. Therefore, respondent No.2 said to be the complainant reiterates the argument of the 1st respondent and seeking to proceed in terms of the provisions of Section 482 of Cr.P.C. and the cognizance taken by the Court below relating to the charge sheet laid against the accused, it does not call for any interference. These are all the contentions taken by the learned HCGP for the State and seeking for dismissal of the petition, as it is devoid of merits.
5. Having regard to these strenuous contentions taken by the learned counsel for the petitioner and so also the averments made in the complaint said to be filed by the respondent No.2, who is the Bank Manager of the Union Bank of India, Branch at Hebbal and on perusal of the entire complaint averments that no allegation is made against the earlier Bank Manager, who is the petitioner :6: herein and the Investigating Officer only recording the statement of some of the bank employees under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. arraigned the Bank Manager as accused and when there is no grievance against the accused, Investigating Officer ought not to have proceeded against the accused, it is a specific case of the petitioner that the borrower colluding with the approved valuer cheated the Bank and there is no any material to believe that this petitioner has also colluded with the borrower and the approved appraiser and in order to continue the criminal proceedings against the Bank Manager, there must be some material before the Court to show that this petitioner is also indulged in colluding with the borrower and also approved valuer playing a fraud against the Bank.
6. However, considering the same, I am of the considered opinion that it is a fit case to exercise the power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. in the absence of any sufficient material against the petitioner or otherwise it amounts to abuse of process of law and also to miscarriage of justice.
:7:
7. For the reasons aforestated, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER The petition filed by the petitioner under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. is hereby allowed. Consequently, the initiation of the proceedings against the petitioner/accused in C.C. No.393/2016 for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 409, 420 read with Section 34 of IPC is quashed.
Sd/-
JUDGE Rsh