1. The petitioner by way of this criminal misc. petition prays for quashing of an FIR No.199/2012 registered at Police Station Jhalra Patan, Jhalawar
on 5.9.2012 for offence under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 & 120-B IPC. During the pendency of this petition, the proceedings have been initiated
against the petitioner under Section 37 of the Police Act issuing standing arrest warrants against him. Thereafter, the charge sheet has been filed
against him under Section 299 Cr.P.C. in absence of the petitioner for offences under Section 420, 467, 468, 471 & 120-B IPC.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Anand Kumar Mohatta & Others
Versus State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) Department of Home and Others reported in AIR 2019 SC 210, the petitioner who has assailed the FIR can
also challenge (2 of 6) [CRLMP-5029/2016] the charge sheet if during the pendency of petition it has submitted the charge sheet.
3. Learned counsel submits that although the petitioner was not named in the FIR but since in subsequent investigation, the petitioner has been made
as an accused, he is entitled to challenge the FIR as well as the charge sheet. Learned counsel submits that the petitioner was the Manager of the
Bank at the relevant time for which the FIR has been registered wherein the allegations levelled are that as many as 65 persons named in the FIR
obtained loan by submitting forged documents under Schedule
61. It is alleged in the FIR that the Bank has suffered a loss of Rs.1,50,00,000/- by wrongfully advanced loan on the basis of false and forged
documents to the concerned persons, who have committed fraud with the Bank by misleading the Bank by submitting forged documents of properties
which were pledged as mortgage.
4. It is submitted that during the investigation, the police has wrongly misdirected the investigation as against the petitioner who was the Bank
Manager and in the charge sheet which has been filed under Section 299 Cr.P.C., the only allegation against the petitioner by the police authorities is
that the petitioner had not personally conducted physical inspection of the land of the agriculturist to whom the loan was advanced and therefore
wrongly verified the documents.
5. Learned counsel submits that the petitioner was a Manager and was not required to personally conduct physical verification of the land and he was
only required to rely upon the report submitted by the legal adviser. Learned counsel has taken this court to the memorandum of understanding entered
between the Bank authorities and the concerned Banks wherein the entire responsibility relating to the verification of the documents is rested with the
Advocate and the concerned Manager cannot be said in any manner required personally to verify the documents by going in the field which releasing
the loan. Thus, the offences under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 & 120-B IPC are not made out as against the petitioner.
6. Learned counsel relies on the judgment passed by the Supreme Court in the case of State of Haryana & Others Versus Ch. Bhajan Lal & Others
reported in AIR 1992 SC 604 and submits that where the allegations made in the FIR even if they are taken on face value and accepted and their
entirety, it did not prima facie constitute the offence. Therefore, the said FIR and further proceedings ought to be quashed.
7. Further, he has relied on the principle laid down in State of Haryana & Others (supra) that in controverting the allegations made in the FIR or
complaint if the evidence collected in support of the same does not disclose the commission of any offence and makes out the case against the
accused, then the petitioner ought not be forced to face criminal proceedings in the FIR and proceedings ought to be quashed.
8. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the submission of the counsel for the petitioner and submits that the petitioner as a Manager of
the Bank was having complete responsibility with regard to release of loan. He submits that the Manager has been found to have conspired with the
other persons, named in the charge sheet, for releasing the loan amount which was never received by the concerned agriculturist. The amount was
thus siphoned off and the Bank Manager has absconded and has not participated in the investigation. Learned counsel thus submits that the allegations
against the petitioner are under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 & 120-B IPC and established and therefore there is no occasion to quash the FIR or
chargesheet.
9. I have considered the submissions and perused the documents placed before the court.
10. In the FIR filed by the Bank, it has been alleged that the loans have been advanced wrongfully to the concerned persons named in the FIR on the
basis of the forged and fraudulent documents of properties which were pledged as mortgage in lieu of loan to the Bank. The entire revenue record and
the mortgaged properties were found to be fraudulent and forged and then the Bank suffered a huge loss. The name of the petitioner is not named in
the FIR.
11. After investigation, the police has found that the petitioner being Manager was involved hand to hands in releasing the amount of loan after
entering into conspiracy with the agents Ghanshyam Dhakad and one Suresh Chand Sharma and with the legal adviser. The relevant part of the
charge sheet and is noted as under:-
‘‘
55
6 (1)
6(1)
◌◌ 10
5 ◌◌ ◌ , ,
◌◌
55 , , 6(1)
-
,
â€
12. This court finds that the facts of the present case are different from the facts which were there before the Apex Court in Anand Kumar Mohatta
& Others. In the present case, the petitioner was not named in the FIR and therefore, at the stage of FIR the petitioner approaching this court was
wholly a case to influence the investigation. If a person's name is not mentioned in the FIR, he would not prima facie have any reason to challenge it
at that stage. If during an investigation a person's name who is later on found to be involved or included in the charge sheet, amendment of the petition
for challenging the charge sheet in the petition wherein FIR was challenged, is not required. However in the present case, as the petition has been
pending since 2016, this court has also examined the charge sheet and as noted above, it is prima facie seen that the Investigation Agency has reached
to the conclusion that the Manager is found to be involved in releasing of loans which were based on forged documents. The charges alleged against
the petitioner is for conspiracy for releasing of the loans.
13. Keeping in view thereof, no case for interference with the police investigation is made out. The criminal misc. petition is wholly misconceived and
the same is accordingly dismissed. All pending applications also stand dismissed.
