Allahabad High Court
Sanjay Kumar Gupta @ Sanjay Gupta vs State Of U.P.And Another on 29 September, 2022
Author: Ajai Tyagi
Bench: Ajai Tyagi
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
A.F.R.
RESERVED
Court No. - 88
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 9643 of 2022
Applicant :- Sanjay Kumar Gupta @ Sanjay Gupta
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.And Another
Counsel for Applicant :- Amrish Sahai
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Aklank Kumar Jain,Bhanu Pratap Dhakray
AND
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 5158 of 2022
Applicant :- Subhasish Choudhary
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.And Another
Counsel for Applicant :- Amrish Sahai
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Aklank Kumar Jain,Bhanu Pratap Dhakray
Hon'ble Ajai Tyagi,J.
1. Both these applications required to be decided together.
2. These applications u/s 482 Cr.P.C. have been filed seeking the quashing of summoning order dated 16.03.2021 and the entire proceedings of Misc. Case No.526 of 2020 (Abhishek Singh Vs. Prabhjeet Singh and Others), arising out of Case Crime No.501 of 2018, under Sections 120-B, 420, 467, and 471 I.P.C., Police Station Sector-49 Noida, District Gautam Budh Nagar, pending in the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-II, Gautam Budh Nagar.
3. In both the applications, applicants have challenged the cognizance/summoning order dated 16.03.2021 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-II, Gautambudh Nagar, summoning the accused Prabhjeet Singh, Hanshraj Dinkar, Arjun Sharma, Subhashish Chaudhary and Sanjay Gupta for trial for the offences under Sections 120-B, 420, 467, 468, 471 I.P.C. after rejecting the final report no.01 of 2020, filed in pursuance of F.I.R. registered as Case Crime No.501 of 2018, which was lodged by opposite party no.2 against the accused persons.
4. Brief facts of the case giving rise to these applications are that a First Information Report was lodged by opposite party no.2 against the accused persons on 12.05.2018 with the averments that opposite party no.2 and his wife Smt. Laxmi Singh are allottee of Flat No. G 801 Tower-1 situated at plot no. GH-3 Sector 4C, Vasundhra, Ghaziabad. The aforesaid flat was allotted in favour of opposite party no.2 and his wife by builder M/S VXL Realtors Pvt. Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as ''Company') having its office in New Delhi by letter no. AGB 0302 dated 30.10.2012. The owner of the company, Prabhjeet Singh told the opposite party no.2 that cost of flat is Rs.57,27,500/- for which loan shall be sanctioned by Bank of Maharashtra and there would be monthly installment of Rs.41,000/- per month. It was also assured by Prabhjeet Singh that this project is not disputed, possession of flat shall be delivered within one year and he took over the responsibility for getting the loan sanctioned by the Bank of Maharashtra, Sector 51, Noida, which has apporved his project.
5. Believing the statements made by Prabhjeet Singh, opposite party no.2 agreed and aforesaid plot was allotted to him on 30.10.2012. After that on this flat, bank sanctioned the loan of Rs.40 lacs on 22.12.2012 out of which Rs.38,10,000/- was transferred into the bank account of company by the bank vide draft no.678255 dated 10.01.2013. Opposite party no.2 had paid Rs.18 lacs as margin money and started paying the monthly installment of Rs.41,000/-. On 19.01.2018 U.P. Awas Evam Vikas Parishad and District Magistrate, Ghaziabad took-over the possession of building and sealed it, which was being constructed by Prabhjeet Singh, owner of the company, in which flat of opposite party no.2 was also situated. On 03.02.2018 when opposite party no.2 enquired, the fact came in the knowledge of opposite party no.2 that building which was being constructed by Prabhjeet Singh, was in dispute before allotment of flat.
6. U.P. Awas Evam Vikas Parishad was undertaking the proceedings of recovery of dues against Prabhjeet Singh, owner of the company, hence, directors of the company have cheated the opposite party no.2 in criminal conspiracy with the Manager of the Bank of Maharashtra. They have cheated the opposite party no.2 for Rs.66,21,000/- by way of fraud, forged documents and forged legal report. It was doubted that directors of the company in connivance with bank officers have cheated him and his wife by fabricating forged documents such as legal search report, no dues certificate etc.
7. After investigation, I.O. has submitted the final report alleging that dispute between the parties is of civil nature and no criminal liability is made out. Opposite party no.2 filed protest petition against the final report and learned Magistrate after hearing the parties, rejected the final report and summoned the accused persons namely, Prabhjeet Singh, Hansraj Dinkar, Arjun Sharma, Subhashish Chaudhary and Sanjay Gupta to face the trial.
8. Mainly aggrieved with the summoning order, both the applicants have filed separate applications under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. for quashing the impugned order and the entire proceedings of the case against them.
9. Heard Mr. Amrish Sahai, learned counsel for both the applicants, Mr. Bhanu Pratap Dhakray, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 and learned A.G.A. for the State. Perused the record.
10. First of all, learned counsel for the applicant has submitted with regard to role of applicant-Subhashish Chaudhary that applicant, Subhashish Chaudhary has been falsely implicated in the present case by opposite party no.2 and he was not involved in sanctioning the housing loan in question nor it was his job to sanction the housing loan. Housing loan has been sanctioned by Maha Retail Credit Hub, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as ''M.R.C.H.') and not by the branch of Bank of Maharashtra situated at Sector 51 Noida. Copy of sanction letter is annexed as Annexure No.3 to the application, which shows that there was no role of branch head in the process of sanctioning the housing loan. Loan file is forwarded by brach to M.R.C.H., New Delhi. After that, branch officer has no say in the process of sanctioning of loan.
11. It is also submitted that project of company, in which, opposite party no.2 and his wife booked the flat was already approved by the Bank of Maharashtra, therefore, there was no reason for appliant-Subhashish Chaudhary to verify the encumbrances on the project. It is mentioned in sanction letter that project is approved by the Bank. Apart from it, flat was allotted to opposite party no.2 by the builder on 30.10.2012, which is evident from the letter of allotment. After two months of allotment of flat, opposite party no.2 approached the bank for providing the housing loan. Opposite party no.2 approached the bank in the month of December, 2012, loan of Rs.40 lacs was sanctioned to him on 22.12.2012 by M.R.C.H. and not by the applicant, the then the manager of Bank of Maharashtra, Branch Sector 51, Noida. Opposite party no.2 himself informed the bank on 10.01.2013 the date of disbursal of loan that he had taken all the responsibility that may arise now or in future.
12. Opposite party no.2 started repaying the loan amount by monthly installment of Rs.41,000/- in terms of sanction letter. But later on, opposite party no.2 stopped the repayment of loan amount and he was issued legal notice on 05.01.2018, after that on 12.05.2018 the First Information Report was lodged by opposite party no.2 involving both the applicants, who had nothing to do with the sanctioning of housing loan.
13. It is further submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that in the meantime before lodgement of F.I.R., loan provided to opposite party no.2, became NPA and Branch Head filed recovery proceedings before the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Lucknow (in short "D.R.T., Lucknow") being Original Application No.222 of 2018 on 16.02.2018. The original application is still pending there. It is evident from Annexure No.11 that application was filed in D.R.T., Lucknow on 16.02.2018 and F.I.R. was lodged by opposite party no.2 on 12.05.2018 i.e. after three months of moving the debts recovery with the intention to stall the proceedings of recovery. It is also contended that Investigating Officer found no criminal liability during the course of investigation and found that dispute is of civil nature, hence, final report was submitted by I.O. on which protest petition was filed by opposite party no.2 and learned Magistrate rejected the final report and summoned the present applicants along with other co-accused persons for facing the trial.
14. Contention of applicant is that learned Magistrate did not apply judicial mind while summoning the applicants because applicant-Subhashish Chaudhary had no role in sanctioning the housing loan to opposite party no.2 and his wife. As far as this fact is concerned that false legal search report was prepared by Subhashish Chaudhary, no such report was prepared nor it is on record. Learned Magistrate has wrongly summoned and concluded that Subhashish Chaudhary had cheated the opposite party no.2 and he was in any conspiracy with the builder and directors of the company. There is no such evidence against the applicant-Subhashish Chaudhary and he has been implicated to exert pressure for stalling the recovery of housing loan, which is public money.
15. So far as applicant-Sanjay Kumar Gupta @ Sanjay Gupta, it is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that it is very surprising that he is made accused in F.I.R. by opposite party no.2 and more surprising that learned Magistrate also summoned him for facing the trial because the entire process of sanctioning the loan to opposite party no.2 and his wife had taken place in the month of December, 2012 and January, 2013 while the applicant-Sanjay Gupta joined in the branch of Sector 51 Noida in the year 2017. He was posted in Meerut in the year 2012 and on 24.05.2012 he was transferred by the bank to Bhopal Region. Transfer order is annexed as Annexure No.2 to the application and on 18.06.2012 he joined the office in Bhopal, joining letter is also annexed as Annexure No.2 to the application.
16. Learned counsel for the applicant has drawn the attention of this Court to the deputation order dated 09.06.2017 (Annexure No.3) by which the applicant-Sanjay Gupta was deputed as Chief Manager in branch of Sector 51, Noida with immediate effect, hence, it is amply clear that he came in the aforesaid branch on deputation on 09.06.2017 and after that permanently posted there as Chief Manager on 28.08.2017. It is also submitted that how an officer, who has joined the branch after more than four years of sanction of loan, can be held guilty. In fact, the recovery proceedings before the D.R.T., Lucknow were filed by applicant-Sanjay Gupta, therefore, to pressurise him for stalling the recovery proceedings, he was also made an accused in F.I.R. and learned Magistrate also without application of judicial mind and ignoring the aforesaid fact of his joining the branch in the year 2017, summoned him also for trial. Hence, summoning order against both the applicants is abuse of process of law and if the criminal proceedings against them are allowed to be continued will create great hardship to the applicants without their fault and without any evidence against them, therefore, criminal proceedings against them be quashed.
17. At the very outset, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 has submitted that true facts of the matter are not argued by learned counsel for the applicant, in fact, applicant-Subhashish Chaudhary was Bank Manager when the housing loan was sanctioned to opposite party no.2 and being the Branch Manager he was actively involved in the process of sanctioning the loan. It is also submitted that builder was in nexus with the bank, the plot on which project of company was going on, was allotted to builder by U.P. Awas Evam Vikas Parishad on 19.11.2005. Builder did not pay the entire amount to U.P. Awas Evam Vikas Parishad and dispute between them had taken place in the year 2006. Builder made default in payment, several letters were issued to him by U.P. Awas Evam Vikas Parishad for demanding the amount, which was not paid by him and ultimately, on 31.12.2012 recovery citation was issued by U.P. Awas Evam Vikas Parishad. Copy of recovery citation is annexed as Annexure CA-1.
18. It is also submitted by learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 that applicant-Subhashish Chaudhary was Bank Manager at the time of sanction of loan to opposite party no.2 and fact of recovery proceedings against the company was very well within the knowledge of Subhashish Chaudhary but he concealed this fact from opposite party no.2 and loan was sanctioned on disputed project. Tripartite agreement was executed among the builder, borrower and Bank Manager-Subhashish Chaudhary on behalf of bank. In this tripartite agreement, there is clause no.16 which says that "flat is free from all encumbrances, charges, liens, lis pendence, attachments, trusts, prior agreements, whatsoever or howsoever". In clause 17 it is also mentioned that there is no order of attachment by the Income Tax Authorities or any other authority under any law for the time being in force nor any notice of acquisition or requisition has been received in respect of the said property.
19. The tripartite agreement was executed among the parties on 10.01.2013 while the recovery citation against the company was already issued on 31.12.2012 but this fact was concealed by Branch Manager, applicant-Subhashish Chaudhary. A false revenue report showing the property "free from all encumbrances" was prepared by applicant Subhashish Chaudhary and loan was sanctioned to opposite party no.2 for grabbing his loan amount and for having wrongful gains.
20. It is further submitted by learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 that opposite party no.2 and his wife have challenged the aforesaid recovery proceedings in D.R.T., Lucknow by way of filing counter claim being Counter Claim No.02 of 2018, which is still pending for adjudication and compensation is also demanded because applicant Subhashish Chaudhary concealed important and substantial information from opposite party no.2.
21. Applicant-Subhashish Chaudhary has put his signature on agreement, hence, he cannot withdrawn himself from the terms and conditions of the aforesaid agreement. Demand draft of loan amount was directly transferred by applicant- Subhashish Chaudhary in the account of the company without handing over the possession or sale deed of flat on which loan was sanctioned. On 31.12.2012 recovery was standing against the builder/company, hence, applicant-Subhashish Chaudhary being the signatory on agreement, is fully responsible towards the loss and hard-earned money of opposite party no.2 because agreement was forged, fabricated and it was prepared so with the conspiracy between the bank and the builder.
22. Applicant-Sanjay Gupta was manager when false recovery proceedings were initiated by the bank in D.R.T., Lucknow and no action was initiated by him against erring employees of the bank.
23. In this way, both the applicants were in criminal conspiracy with the builder and they have also cheated the opposite party no.2 with the help of false and forged documents. Investigating Officer has submitted final report, which was result of wrong and poor investigation. The dispute between the parties is not of civil nature and learned Magistrate has rightly rejected the final report and summoned both the applicants for trial along with other co-accused persons on the basis of protest petition.
24. Learned A.G.A. has submitted that there is no illegality, impropriety and incorrectness in the impugned order under challenge and also there seem to be no abuse of court's process.
25. The allegations against the applicant-Subhashish Chaudhary is that project of the company was not clear and free from all encumbrances at the time of sanction of housing loan to opposite party no.2 and this fact was well within the knowledge of applicant-Subhashish Chaudhary but this fact was not disclosed by him to opposite party no.2 and all the information regarding this fact pertaining to the recovery proceedings by U.P. Awas Evam Vikas Parishad were withheld by him. Applicant-Subhashish Chaudhary was actively involved in this crime for his personal gain and causing wrongful loss to opposite party no.2 and his wife. These allegations are levelled against the applicant-Subhashish Chaudhary on the basis of tripartite agreement among the builder, borrower and bank manager because applicant-Subhashish Chaudhary is signatory on this agreement.
26. First of all, it is to be examined by this Court whether applicant-Subhashish Chaudhary had any role in sanctioning the housing loan to opposite party no.2 and his wife. It is the case of applicant-Subhashish Chaudhary that branch manager is not sanctioning authority of housing loan and loan was sanctioned by Zonal Office of Bank of Maharashtra called as M.R.C.H., New Delhi through central processing mechanism, hence, loan in question to opposite party no.2 was also sanctioned by M.R.C.H., which is crystal clear from Annexure No.3 to the application, which is sanction letter for housing loan. This sanction letter is signed by Assistant General Manager, Assest Branch, New Delhi on behalf of M.R.C.H., meaning thereby that the applicant-Subhashish Chaudhary did not sanction the loan.
27. Now, question remains of dispute and recovery proceedings against company by U.P. Awas Evam Vikas Parishad. This is the allegation by the opposite party no.2, being the Branch Manager, applicant-Subhashish Chaudhary was having knowledge of this fact but this fact was concealed by him and agreement was executed by him with false clauses, demonstrating the project free from all encumbrances. In this regard, perusal of sanction letter goes to show that on its second page, there is column "legal search charges" in which it is mentioned N.A. (Not Applicable) and further it is mentioned "Project is approved by bank". It means that the project of the company, in which opposite party no.2 was allotted a flat, was approved by the bank, hence, when the project was already approved by the bank, the applicant-Subhashish Chaudhary was not supposed to prepare the revenue report as alleged by opposite party no.2, which is also not on the record of this Court.
28. It is alleged in para no.5 of counter affidavit that applicant-Subhashish Chaudhary, Bank Manager has prepared the false revenue report showing the property free from all encumbrances. No report is place on record, hence, it cannot be opined that applicant-Subhashish Chaudhary prepared any false revenue report, more so, it was not required on his part because the sanction letter shows that project was approved by the bank. If the project was wrongly approved by the bank then the employees/officers who were responsible for approving the project may be held responsible but not the applicant-Subhashish Chaudhary because project was already approved when he signed the tripartite agreement on behalf of the bank on the instructions of sanction letter by M.R.C.H. because documentation was directed in the aforesaid sanction letter vide condition no.7. In this way, applicant - Subhashish Chaudhary became signatory on agreement on behalf of bank because he was only executant of documents.
29. Since the project was already approved by the bank and if it was wrongly approved then also applicant-Subhashish Chaudhary cannot be held liable because there is no such evidence on record that he was in any way involved in the process of approval of the project. Criminal liability is not vicarious liability and Subhashish chaudhary cannot be held vicariously liable if some other bank officers/employees have approved the housing project wrongfully or illegally. Learned Magistrate held him liable and summoned on the basis of tripartite agreement but learned Magistrate lost sight from the fact that he was only executant of the documents on behalf of the bank under instructions of M.R.C.H., which is a central processing unit of loan.
30. Learned Magistrate also lost sight from the fact that loan was sanctioned by the aforesaid M.R.C.H. and project was already approved by the bank as per the sanction letter. Moreover, learned Magistrate has committed grave error in impugned order by holding that the recovery proceedings at the behest of U.P Awas Evam Vikas Parishad against the project was in the knowledge of bank manager and it seems that fraud has been played upon opposite party no.2 with the conspiracy. This finding of learned Magistrate is without any evidence on record.
31. As discussed above, when the project was already approved by the bank, bank manager was not supposed to make due diligence. In the conclusion of impugned order also, learned Magistrate has opined that all the accused persons have cheated the opposite party no.2 i.e. complainant of F.I.R, deliberately in connivance and conspiracy with bank employees but role of bank officers is not assessed by learned Magistrate in right perspective because he did not take into consideration, the fact that loan was sanctioned by M.R.C.H. and project was already approved by the bank.
32. At the same time, the argument of opposite party no.2 is unsustainable that loan amount was directly transferred by the bank in the account of the company without giving possession of the flat to opposite party no.2 or execution of sale deed because the amount of loan is transferred by the bank in the account of agency/authority from which the goods or property is being purchased by the borrower. Opposite party no.2 and his wife have signed the receipt for amount of loan (Annexure No.5), in which it is clearly mentioned that draft is prepared in favour of the company. There is absolutely no evidence against the applicant-Sanjay Kumar Gupta, the loan was disbursed to opposite party no.2 by the bank in the month of January, 2013, when the applicant-Sanjay Kumar Gupta was posted in Bhopal and he has joined in the concerned branch of the bank i.e .Sector 51, Noida in the year 2017 after more than four and half years of sanctioning of the loan. Office order of the bank dated 24.05.2012 (Annexure No.2) is the order of transferring him from Meerut to Bhopal and there is another office order of Bank of Maharashtra, Zonal Office Bhopal, which shows that applicant-Sanjay Kumar Gupta had reported at Zonal Office, Bhopal on 18.06.2012. Annexure No.3 goes to show that applicant-Sanjay Kumar Gupta was deputed as Chief Manager of the branch situated at Sector 51, Noida on 09.06.2017, meaning thereby, before 09.06.2017 the applicant-Sanjay Kumar Gupta was not posted in the aforesaid branch and at the time of entire process of disbursal of loan, the applicant-Sanjay Kumar Gupta was posted in Bhopal. Hence, he was not having any role in disbursal/sanction of loan amount to opposite party no.2. Learned Magistrate very strongly lost sight of this fact also.
33. Learned Magistrate has considered the statement of informant Abhishek Singh, recorded under section 161 of Cr.P.C in the impugned order but did not consider it with judicial mind. It is stated by informant in the statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C that when the project was sealed due to default in payment by the builder to U.P. Awas Evam Vikas Parishad then he (opposite party no.2) demanded loan amount back from applicant-Sanjay Kumar Gupta and applicant threatened to deposit the amount of installments. This is the only allegation made by informant against applicant-Sanjay Kumar Gupta. Applicant could not return the money as it was wrongfully demanded by opposite party no.2. According to his statement, given to I.O., bank had already transferred the loan amount in the account of the company. In such a situation, how a bank manager could return the money to the borrower, it is beyond understanding, which is highly deplorable.
34. Learned Magistrate could not even think how the applicant-Sanjay Kumar Gupta could return the money to opposite party no.2 and an officer who had joined the branch of the bank after four and half years of disbursal of loan, can be held liable for criminal prosecution. There is no iota of evidence against applicant-Sanjay Kumar Gupta also.
35. In the backdrop of facts and circumstances and evidence on record at this stage, this Court finds no mens rea on the part of both the applicants. If the tripartite agreement is signed by applicant-Subhashish Chaudhary as discussed above, it was only part of the documentation and there was no guilty intention of mind because loan was sanctioned by M.R.C.H. and project was already approved by the bank. Hence, it cannot be transpired from the record that there was any intention of applicant-Subhashish Chaudhary to cheat the opposite party no.2 and his wife. Mens rea is completely absent.
36. There is no question of mens rea against the applicant-Sanjay Kumar Gupta also because he was not posted in that branch at the time of disbursal of loan amount to opposite party no.2 and he was transferred/deputed in that branch after four and half years of disbursal of loan amount. If he has filed recovery proceedings against the opposite party no.2 in D.R.T., Lucknow, he cannot be held liable for criminal prosecution because he did it as part of his duty and the statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C given to I.O. by opposite party no.2 that he demanded his money back from applicat-Sanjay Kumar Gupta was absolutely unfair demand which could not be met by the applicant as per the rules & regulations and procedure of the bank.
37. The following observations made by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of Karnataka Vs. L. Muniswamy & Ors., (1977) 2 SCC 699, may be relevant to note at this stage:-
"The whole some power under Section 482 CrPC entitles the High Court to quash a proceeding when it comes to the conclusion that allowing the proceeding to continue would be an abuse of the process of the Court or that the ends of justice require that the proceeding ought to be quashed. The High Courts have been invested with inherent power, both in civil and criminal matters, to achieve a salutary public purposes. A Court proceeding ought not to be permitted to degenerate into a weapon of harassment or persecution. The Court observed in this case that ends of justice are higher than the ends of mere law though justice must be administered according to laws made by the legislature."
38. In the case of M/s.Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. & Ors. Vs. Mohd. Sharaful Haque & Anr. (2005) 1 SCC 122, Hon'ble Apex Court observed as under :-
"It would be an abuse of process of the court to allow any action which would result in injustice and prevent promotion of justice. In exercise of the powers court would be justified to quash any proceeding if it finds that initiation/continuance of it amounts to abuse of the process of court or quashing of these proceedings would otherwise serve the ends of justice. When no offence is disclosed by the complaint, the court may examine the question of fact. When a complaint is sought to be quashed, it is permissible to look into the materials to assess what the complainant has alleged and whether any offence is made out even if the allegations are accepted in toto."
39. Again in Madhavrao Jiwajirao Scindia & Anr. Vs. Sambhajirao Chandrojirao Angre & Ors., (1988) 1 SCC 692, Hon'ble Apex Court observed in paragraph 7 as under :-
"7. The legal position is well-settled that when a prosecution at the initial stage is asked to be quashed, the test to be applied by the court is as to whether the uncontroverted allegations as made prima facie establish the offence. It is also for the court to take into consideration any special features which appear in a particular case to consider whether it is expedient and in the interest of justice to permit a prosecution to continue. This is so on the basis that the court cannot be utilised for any oblique purpose and where in the opinion of the court chances of an ultimate conviction is bleak and, therefore, no useful purpose is likely to be served by allowing a criminal prosecution to continue, the court may while taking into consideration the special facts of a case also quash the proceeding even though it may be at a preliminary stage."
40. In the absence of any material on record, even prima facie, in the F.I.R. or statement of the informant, pointing out any such circumstances, showing any such act or intention that the applicants intended to cheat the opposite party no.2 and his wife and causing financial loss to them and in the absence of any specific allegations and material of definite nature, not imaginary or inferential one, it would be travesty of justice to ask the applicants to face the trial. Bearing in mind, the factual aspect of the case delineated herein above and the legal principles enunciated by Hon'ble Apex Court cited above and on the basis of aforesaid discussion, this Court is of the considered opinion that the learned Magistrate was not justified in summoning the applicants namely, Shubhashish Chaudhary and Sanjay Kumar Gupta to face the trial for the aforesaid offences because no such offence is made out against them and to put them on trial and permitting the trial to continue against both the applicants would be an abuse of process of law. Even uncontroverted allegations of the prosecution do not constitute any offence against the applicants, who were bank officers, in which Sanjay Kumar Gupta had joined the particular branch of the bank after four and half years of the disbursal of loan amount to opposite party no.2 and his wife. Applicant-Subhashish Chaudhary had no role in sanctioning of loan and it was not required or supposed to verify the liability, if any, on the project because that project was already approved by the bank. There is nothing on record to show that applicant-Subhashish Chaudhary was in any way played any role in approval of the said project.
41. In the aforesaid circumstances of the case, it is deemed proper that in order to meet the ends of justice and avert the abuse of court's process the impugned summoning order dated 16.03.2021 cannot be sustained against the applicants and the proceedings of the aforesaid case be quashed forthwith against both the applicants and are hereby quashed.
42. Both the applications u/s 482 Cr.P.C. are allowed.
43. It is made clear that impugned summoning order dated 16.03.2021 and the entire proceedings of the aforesaid case thereof are quashed only against the applicants namely, Subhashish Chaudhary and Sanjay Kumar Gupta @ Sanjay Gupta. The observations made in this order are strictly confined to the disposal of applications u/s 482 Cr.P.C. with regard to above applicants only. Rest of the accused persons cannot take recourse of the observations made in this order in any proceedings.
44. A copy of this order be certified to the lower court forthwith.
(Ajai Tyagi,J.) Order Date :- 29.09.2022 P.S. Parihar