Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Uttarakhand High Court

Chandra Mohan Arora vs State Of Uttarakhand on 15 May, 2012

Author: Prafulla C. Pant

Bench: Prafulla C. Pant

     IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT
                     NAINITAL
            Criminal Writ Petition No. 405 of 2012


Chandra Mohan Arora,
S/o Late Sri Sunder Shyam,
Internal Chief Auditor,
Punjab National Bank,
Siyaganj & Manoramganj Branches,
Indore, M.P.
                                                    .........Petitioner

                               Versus

     1- State of Uttarakhand, through Secretary Home,
        Dehradun.
     2- Inspector/Investigation Officer, C.B.C.I.D., Sector-
        Dehradun.
                                           ......Respondents
Mr. L.K. Tiwari, Advocate, present for the petitioner.
Mr. S.S. Adhikari, A.G.A., present for the State.

Hon'ble Prafulla C. Pant, J.

Heard.

2) By means of this writ petition, moved under Article 226 of Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the First Information Report dated 20.11.2007, registered as Crime No. 322 of 2007, relating to offences punishable under Section 420, 467, 468, 471 & 380 of I.P.C., at Police Station-Gangnahar, District Haridwar, so far as it relates to the petitioner.

3) Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is a Chief Manager of Punjab National Bank, who himself lodged the First Information Report in question, against two accused namely Virendra Singh and Manoj Kumar. Loan transaction relates to the year 2006, and the First Information Report was lodged in the year 2007. It is alleged by the complainant (present petitioner) that the cheating and forgery was committed by accused Virendra Singh and Manoj Kumar in obtaining the loan of Rs.5.9 Crores from the Bank. It is further submitted that sanctioning authority of the loan was Zonal Manager. It is also pleaded that before the sanctioning of the loan, the petitioner's predecessor in the office, checked the papers of the debtor. In the circumstances, it is argued that it is abuse of process of law on the part of the Investigating Officer to harass the present petitioner, who himself is a complainant and brought the offences committed by the main accused in to the light.

4)         Admit the petition.

5)         Learned counsel for the State prays for and is

allowed six weeks' time to file the counter affidavit.

6) Having considered submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner, and learned counsel for the State, as an interim measure, it is directed that petitioner Chandra Mohan Arora, shall not be arrested in connection with First Information Report dated 20.11.2007, registered as Crime No. 322 of 2007, relating to offences punishable under 3 Section 420, 467, 468, 471 & 380 of I.P.C., at Police Station- Gangnahar, District Haridwar, during investigation, provided he cooperates with the investigating agency. (Stay Application No. 4513 of 2012, stands disposed of).

7)           List after six weeks.




                                         (Prafulla C. Pant, J.)
15.05.2012
JM