Pushpa Singh & Ors. vs State Of Jharkhand Th.C.B.I. on 18 January, 2014

[Cites 0, Cited by 0]

Jharkhand High Court

Pushpa Singh & Ors. vs State Of Jharkhand Th.C.B.I. on 18 January, 2014

Bench: R. R. Prasad

            IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND, RANCHI
                           Cr. M. P. No. 1635 of 2010

           1.Pushpa Singh
           2.Saket Kumar Singh
           3.Abhijit Kanti Dam                             .....   Petitioner(s)

                                      Versus
           1.The State of Jharkhand through C.B.I.
           2.Sri Farukh Rashid Bokhari                             ....    Opp. Party(

           CORAM:          HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. R. PRASAD

           For the Petitioner(s)       :      M/s Anil Kumar
                                              D. K. Chakraverty, Advocate.
           For the CBI                  :     Md. Mokhtar Khan, ASGI
           For the Bank                 :     Mr. A. R. Choudhary, Advocate
                                      -----

19 /18.01.2014

. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that in the year 2007, the petitioners had obtained loan from the Allahbad Bank, B.S. City Branch, Bokaro on depositing certain Title Deeds as collateral secruity. Subsequently, it was informed by the Bank Officials that there were some defects relating to the Title Deed which had been deposited as collateral security. Immediately thereafter the petitioner on 18.06.2010 submitted an application that he will be substituting those documents. Thereupon on 27.07.2010, the petitioner submitted another document as collateral security. Only thereafter the instant F.I.R. was lodged on 25.08.2010 and thereby, it can be said that on the date when the F.I.R. was lodged, the documents which were submitted as collateral securities were in order and further after the F.I.R. was lodged, the petitioner did deposit all the amount which was due to be paid to the Bank and in the event, neither the petitioner can be said to have committed forgery or misappropriation.

Upon it, learned counsel appearing for the CBI submits that from the document available with him, it does appear that only an application was filed to the effect that the documents which were deposited as collateral securities and were found to be forged would be replaced by the other documents, but nothing is there on the record to show that those documents had ever been replaced.

Upon it again it was reiterated by the counsel appearing for the petitioner that those documents had already been replaced.

-2-

In that event, let instruction be taken by the learned counsel appearing for the Bank as to whether in fact documents had been replaced or only an application had been filed with respect to substitution of those documents.

List this matter on 31.01.2014.

Let a copy of the order be handed-over to the learned counsel appearing for the Bank for needful.

(R. R. Prasad, J.) Sandeep/

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Jharkhand High Court