Gujarat High Court
Bank Of Rajasthan Limited Throchief ... vs State Of Gujarat & 3 on 11 August, 2015
Author: Sonia Gokani
Bench: Sonia Gokani
R/CR.RA/133/2002 ORDER
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 133 of 2002
With
CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 134 of 2002
With
CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 135 of 2002
==========================================================
BANK OF RAJASTHAN LIMITED THROCHIEF MANAGER YOGENDRA
MUNDRA....Applicant(s)
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & 3....Respondent(s)
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR SV RAJU, ADVOCATE for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MS. HANSA PUNANI ADDL. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for the Respondent(s)
No. 1
RULE UNSERVED for the Respondent(s) No. 2 - 4
==========================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MS JUSTICE SONIA GOKANI
Date : 11/08/2015
ORAL ORDER
Pursuant to the order of this Court Joginder Singh Bhadouri, Area Legal Manager, ICICI Bank Ltd is present in this Court.
1. All the three Revision Applications are being taken by common order as more or less the facts and the law Page 1 of 7 HC-NIC Page 1 of 7 Created On Tue Aug 18 00:18:06 IST 2015 R/CR.RA/133/2002 ORDER involved is identical.
2. The facts are taken from Criminal Revision Application No. 133 of 2002. The petitioner bank is a banking institution having many branches, of which one of them is situated at Ellisbridge, Ahmedabad. The petitioner has filed a private complaint in the Metropolitan Magistrate Court No. 15 at Ahmedabad, being Criminal Case No. 397/2002 on 6/2/2002 against the the accused for the alleged offences under section 420, 467, 468, 471, 474 and 120 B of the I.P.C. The Court after recording the verification of the complainant issued process against the accused for the offences under section, 420, 467, 468, 471, 474 and 120 B of the I.P.C by order dated 6th February 2002. The petitioner is aggrieved on the count that alternative prayer of the petitioner was to send the matter for inquiry under section 156(3) of the Code. The Court instead issued the process, therefore this petition.
2.1 It is the case of the petitioner that respondent 1
and 2 approached the bank for housing loan as they
Page 2 of 7
HC-NIC Page 2 of 7 Created On Tue Aug 18 00:18:06 IST 2015
R/CR.RA/133/2002 ORDER
wanted to purchase on a flat in Shantasagar Apartment, near Darpan six roads, Navrangpura, Ahmedabad, being flat No. A/2/52 valued at Rs 11,50,000/(eleven thousand fifty thousand). The loan was sanctioned on their assuring the original title deed of the property at the time of disbursement and in this way the loan was sanctioned and thereafter the original accused no.1 and 2 have submitted the original documents namely memorandum of deposit of title deeds, letter of undertakings, letter of possession, original share certificate no. 49, promissory note, letter of waiver, declaration, housing loan agreement. Documents relating to confirmation of mortgage were also submitted by these respondents. The sanction was given by the petitioner on the strength of these documents for an amount of Rs 7 lakhs in accordance with the rules and regulations. Such amount was credited in the name of respondent no. 3. The draft was given in the name of respondent no. 3 viz, chairman of Shri Pareekh Association and the same was credited in the a/c with Charotar Nagrik Sahakari Bank.
Page 3 of 7
HC-NIC Page 3 of 7 Created On Tue Aug 18 00:18:06 IST 2015
R/CR.RA/133/2002 ORDER
3. The complainant bank on the strength of the
communication received from Punjab National Bank dated 15th September 2001 through the Indian Bank Association initiated the proceedings. A notification was issued containing names of the present respondents. It enlisted interalia those persons who had obtained loan from different banks on adopting deceitful means by tendering the very documents. According to the complainant bank as the respondents have taken loan from other banks in collusion with respondent no. 3 and have allegedly committed forgery it was necessary that the police investigation be ordered. It is also the case of the petitioner that the documents have been forged with an intention to cheat the banks. This also has resulted into nonrecovery of the said amount causing loss of the public money. These allegations of misappropriation and forgery could have been better unearthed acceding if police investigation was directed as requested for.
4. Learned advocate Mr. Bhadresh Raju appearing for the applicant bank urged that the bank of Rajasthan has Page 4 of 7 HC-NIC Page 4 of 7 Created On Tue Aug 18 00:18:06 IST 2015 R/CR.RA/133/2002 ORDER merged with ICICI bank. He has also fairly submitted that the request was made in the very complaint for issuance of the process however, in the alternative the request for police inquiry under section 156(3) was made.
5. This Court vide its order dated 25th Feb 2004 noted that two respondents namely Mrs. Smita Shah and Mr. Ashwin Shah were in judicial custody and other offences were also registered against them. Registry was directed to serve notice to them through the Superintendent , Sabarmati Central Jail and other respondents in the Revision Application No. 134/2002 and 135/2002 were served with bailable warrant. None has chosen to represent these respondents.
6. As can be seen from the very complaint the request on the part of the complainant was to issue process under section 420, 467, 468, 471, 474 read with section 120(b) of IPC. It is only by way of alternative prayer it was requested that the compliant may be sent for enquiry under section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
Page 5 of 7
HC-NIC Page 5 of 7 Created On Tue Aug 18 00:18:06 IST 2015
R/CR.RA/133/2002 ORDER
Any Magistrate empowered under section 190 may order such an investigation as provided under sub section (3) of Section 156 of the Code.
7. For the reason that such prayer was alternative and the Court was convinced from the materials on record so also from the submissions of the complainant for issuance of the process which is the first prayer of the bank. As could also be noted from the tenor of the complaint that the details of the respondents allegedly defrauding the petitioner bank and misappropriating the amount by depositing title deeds in respect of the very property before different banks, prima facie convinced the court for issuing process. The case essentially rests on the documentary evidence. The very efflux of time in hearing this Revision Application may also not permit this Court to direct this inquiry under section 156(3) of the Code at this stage.
8. With regard to the averments made in respect of hand writing expert for proving the charge of forgery etc the Page 6 of 7 HC-NIC Page 6 of 7 Created On Tue Aug 18 00:18:06 IST 2015 R/CR.RA/133/2002 ORDER applicants can always put forth his request before the concerned court during the course of the trial. If such request is made the Court surely would consider in accordance with law. That cannot be a ground to interfere.
7. All these Revision Applications do not deserve entertainment and the same are disposed of. The trial Court shall proceed with the matter as expeditiously as possible.
(MS SONIA GOKANI, J.) mary Page 7 of 7 HC-NIC Page 7 of 7 Created On Tue Aug 18 00:18:06 IST 2015