Karnataka High Court
Sri N Gangadhar @ Surya Prasad vs The State By The Inspector Of Police ... on 24 June, 2010
{N THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
Dated this the 24th day of June, 2010 j
BEFORE
THE I-ION'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARALI _ ,1'
CRIMINAL PETITION No:j'48?_f,5,1200€i'~.' T
BETWEEN
Sri N Gangadhar
@ Surya Prasad.
s / 0.1ate Nanjaiah,
(Now Surya Prasad}, ..
aged about 44 years, _ '
No.i228, Bid Cy:o:~2«sV,i_'-- i '
KN Extension, =. g 5f
Yeshwanthpur,_.-if. .
Banga1ore_:p560pVG22,_ V " .. Petitioner
(By Sri iii' Gan 'i?ai*iy?'i§i_-;)ei'son]
AND : d V d i
The State
.- . 'By Inspeetor"of ,._PQ1iee,
CB1/SPE'fNo;~36.
.,
eflianaigars
Bariga1o1je4~5'?_£iG' O32. Respondent
_ 'v.__(By Sr1~\/;ij«a3fkumar Maj age, HCGP] Cr1.P is filed U/S 482 of Cr.P.C., praying to qiiasii proceedings in Sp1.CC 157/2001 pending against i " petitioner --- accused NO.3 in the Court of XXI Additional
-"City Civil and Sessions Judge and Special Judge for CB1 c_....§""""\.-------
IQ Cases at Bangalore City order dated 15.11.2002 passed thereunder. 9 This Crl.P coming on for hearing this court passed the following:
oaomg Accused No.3 in Spl.CC 157}{20{(_)i1A~iipe'nc1infg' or{'ithé?i.c_:
file of the learned XXI Addition:aE..City"Civil_aiildA"Sevssions Judge and Special Judge forl:CBI'--»..gCase"s;.._Baiagalore (CCC.-4) (hereinafter Court') has sought for quashinvg of in the said C8186.
2. Stated _t'h§*..facts leading to the present petition are4_l_asvur1de'rV;' »-- if The Police have charge sheeted accused to 3 before the Trial Court alleging that if I committed the offences 11/8 420 r /w 7_"o'sccticicf'1o9 IPC and u/S3' '1'3(2) 1'/W Secticn "13"{.},).{d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988; 'A Accused No.2 committed an offence under Section S5420 IPC and accused No.3, the petitioner herein, committed the an offence u/S 420 r/W Section 109 IPC.
,.r'---~*
(b) After hearing both the sides on the ques~tio.n of framing charge. the Trial Court passed ., dated 15.11.2002 holding that there are ~ to presume that accused Nop.3V g(pet1ti'oner~..hcteini it committed the offence under with Section 109 IPC. Aggriextfedlby thesai'd mtietip * this petitioner fiied C:-LVP-rife-.,168S,12OQ{1':on~.;the file of this Court. The said petitionacame allowed by this Court by directing the Trial Court to' "thy:-ii__'_'case of the petitioner '{;3\t;3p).afr§esh the case in accordance with 'law.
(cjy llll li2'.._"V1"(')'.iV.'420O¢}t, this petitioner (A3) filed iiieiiVriai5p1ietitity_n'under Section 239 CIZPC seeldngdihisl" the said case. By order __;cI'ated i7-.»7_.'2oo6"'t1i'e Trial Court rejected the said A:;tIj.j:ilica.tioniV lllll "Thereafter, the petitioner has i this Court by filing his present it Wpetiti.o:nl[:=.V'under Section 482 Cr.PC seeking qu'aslu'ng of the entire proceedings in the said case against him only.
.1 "*1 have heard the arguments of the petitioner Sri N Titangadhar, who is party--in--person and Sri Prasanna €...r~'""* Kumar, the learned Advocate for Sri C H Jadhav, the learned Advocate for the respondent -- CB1. Perused:
entire material found in the original recordsiobtairiedf-'.._. . from the Trial Court.
4. The case of the prosecution is éis_g1tnder:y7A A .. 1
(a) Accused No.1 A the Branch Manager of. Chvainaraj apet Branch, Bangalore. from 1994 to l997._ aslii~on"$tudio Private Limitedfis refijeseinted by its Director Srilf' Dotti. i1s19séo_..i'}§sscu'sed "no.3 N Gangadhar (M financial consultant having A H place of 'business at Ye shvianthjjur'. _B angalore.
'vi--Accused***«l\Io.2 Company availed from the
--~ Bank packing credit limit loan of While availing the said loan, the properties belonging to CW16 Doraiswamy and g Martin were given as collateral security in A respect of the said credit facility. Accused No.1 was the Manager of the complainant Bank at the relevant time of sanctioning of the said credit W facility to accused No.2 Company. The properties of CW16 Doraiswamy were given to the Banlfas collateral security by accused No.8 (peti_tic.rier"..'g herein) by virtue of power of attorney . have been executed by CW1.6_himse!.f;"'They'-yvere " 9 so offered by petitioner (A3) the' and consent of CW16 with anp:intent.>'iOp"'he1p'. company, which avai1e'd:'the .loan"'..;facility. Further, the properties of.xVCpW1?_gMartin:Vyveiiie given by accused Ne.3V ['pe'titio_ner to the Bank by obtaining his signyature-son; th~ev.'con_c.erned papers without filling' the bliaxiiksz. up ' "
(cl). i«.:.Vgx;;ras_ nwcticléud'1§Y"the§.corr1plainant -- Bank that accusedV'§.No.;2.,cheatedthe Bank by obtaining the loan 'faci1ity"by»..o1fering properties of CWs.16 _a_;nd 17 as collateral securities with the aid and _f'}'«:.as_sistance-».Vo_f'_.accused No.3 and without the ' consent_ or knowledge of CWs.16 and 17 and it wrongful loss to the Bank to the Rs.44,89,58o/- as on 10.4.1997.
"Therefore, the complainant - Bank filed its cornplaint against accused No.1, the Manager of the Bank and accused No.2, the company xv 6 represented by its Managing Director and two others.
(e). During the investigation, the H41§oI'i(:.g§ found that the properties of CW_s.16.*aI1di:17''yye.re "
fraudulently offered as securitygybyj, (petitioner herein) by producing power.ofgatt.or:iey.:l"
purported to have bee_ri*~..ygexeeL1tedVAV Doraiswamy and pro.d.ulcing.._gthe' blankfiisigned papers of CW17VMza;'rtiI'i_ and "th;u's~yhe abetted the commissiongof themoffeneelundeVr'n--Se_etion 420 IPC by aecu;se':lg:,Vg:yZ'No.5$_ offence under Section" .re§_35g__1;' «v.._withlfv'v Seotion 13(1}[d) of Preventiron Aiet, 1988 by accused l A l I Bank.
N:o_.1,__ Of complainant --
Therefore,' submitted charge 'sheet against this petitioner {._A'3«)._"~~'lfor the offence under Section' readllwith Section 109 IPC.
the party«in--person, strongly the complainant -- Bank did not lodge V'-.eon'ip1"a,in~t against him and FIR was not registered him, it is only the CBI police, with intent to hflhfarass him, has arrayed him as accused No.3 in the c~--c~'~/* charge sheet in collusion with CWs.l8 and 17 and therefore the proceedings in the said case as him deserve to be set aside. He further _ the statements of CWs.16 and 17... and _-- ,cf.na1'ge '4 sheet witnesses are falsely created only with intent to harass therefore'lthefljpresenti petition may be allowedand..l-ailjlfurther pfroceedings in the said case be quashed as agairistl _
6. Per Sri V "'th'e~iearned Advocate arguing..f0rA'Sri'C'~.; learned counsel for the respondent contends that the statemenxtsg of 1'? and 38 respectively, Martin: and Y J Bhadrinarayan clearly disclos_e"that.__this petitioner - accused fraudulently 'offered 'properties belonging to CWs.16 and 17 as collateral security just to help the accused No.2 Vcolnjpany in availing the said credit facility and fconsequently the Bank has sustained wrongful loss and '____{'\r"\.---
11
9. Statement of CW38 Y J Badrinarayanan, an official of Andhra Bank, Chamarajpet Branch, relevant time of the said transaction, following facts: p The security loan dociiment being a stamp paper of' R_:s.50)'.§_ was prepared'by« V him. The stamp paper a1rea.c,iy"A the signatures of the' guarantcij'*vs}iien the--same was given to him by the "lVia,na§-;;ei.' forfifiriting the matter therein. V _ V ' V' i' "
10. From§'th'e_'«aboi}_e'lstatementsaof 17 and 38. it is c1ear"'t11at;pthi:é;:.:petifienelr' "U-\,3}»'§obtained signatures of CW16 on the purporting to be the power of attorney e>teciitcd'~ in respect of his properties Viobtainepd signatures of CW1? on the guarantee i :§ap¢rsti'pt¢ptt[a:titng to the Bank Without filling the blanks and the' documents were used by him for offering V. tlproperties of CWs.16 and 17 as collateral security to the Klcomplainant -- Bank.
(___{--"'-V.'-u
11. At the stage of framing charges, the Court has to see whether the averments in the compla1'ntV,/V.lt~"".I_l5'{e,,_V statements of charge sheet witnesses aifid' documents collected by the 10 during_ the.--irivestiga:tioni"
prima facie disclose any cognizable c-_fi"c.rice,or. fiotfif-ie._At, f that stage, the defence ofthe accnsed considered. The law is .settled_4_i:that*..i_i the in FIR/complaint. staternents. viritnesses and the docuifn.ent.s investigation prima facie' that the accused cognizable offence, chargesshall against the accused for that' .gffenc"e. Fun-rtl1.er;~~-"iiif the said material does not ll be such he shall be entitled to an order 12:" z'i'Vhe.'"above statements of CWs.16, 1'7 and 38 it clearly" establish that this petitioner assisted or aided 'accused No.2 in availing the loan on the basis of the .....~:'-v--
13 properties of CWs.16 and 17 as collateral security for the said loan. Therefore, it could not be said thatVVt'the_V charge for the offence u/s.42o r/W s.1o9 IPc:'cj'1evei1egéi _ against this petitioner (A3) is groundles_s. H '
13. The petitioner, Gangadhar, Who_is« party.%'in4'perVsori.VVC' has placed reliance on the decision of Supreme Court in the case of Ahlutualia & ors. ---vs~ State o_f_Pury'cth._&.Qrs_VVreported'in 2009 Cri.LJ 3462. In the theV.'Sup.rernc----.C'ourt found from the records FIR were made with ulterior. V1rrs'iftiJ:Je_to_:.'hara.ss the appellants therein and therefo_re ,coi3.tiiiu»a,ri'ce of proceedings against them process of the Court. Therefore, the I Horrible,"~Supre_me Court was placed to quash the against the appellants therein. It is settled that theinherent powers vested in the High Court under A iSe"ction 482 Cr.PC shall have to be exercised very K cautiously and sparingly. Where the averrnents made in W the complaint/ FIR and other materials collected by the 10 during the investigation do not prima facie rnakefotit any cognizable offence against accused, the H_ig"Ii~ would be justified in quashing the Vproceeding.sL::~,VBu:t,as observed by me supra, the relevant record by the prosecution in':th_.e instarit. casertjnalzce a prima facie case against d_(}:\3)V';for the offence under Section ;v{rit.1fi.A:'Section 109 IPC. Therefore, the proceedi'r1'gs::in' the against the accused cannot in j_ex:erci'se of power under Section 48:: dc'r.P£";{;. & "fl For the the present petition is hereby dismissed being, devoid of merit. No order as costf" V i' to the court below forthwith. ' sci/-
JUDGE T