Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 1172 (PAT)

Purnanand Jha v. State of Bihar

2014-11-27

ASHUTOSH KUMAR

body2014
ORDER Heard Mr. Ranjan Kumar Jha, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Bharat lal, learned Counsel for the Bank. The State is being represented by Mr. Jharkhandi Upadhyay. 2. The petitioner seeks quashing of the order dated 20.12.2010 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Samastipur in connection with M.Nagar P.S. Case No. 66 of 2008, whereby the prayer made on behalf of the petitioner for discharge has been rejected. 3. The petitioner, at the relevant time, was Area Manager of the Bank. A written complaint was lodged by one Regional Manager, Land Development Bank, Darbhanga alleging that the loan was granted to one Dev Deep Singh for the purposes of purchase of tractor and accessories. The amount of loan disbursed were Rs. 3 lakhs. 4. Allegation against the petitioner and the Branch Manager in the FIR is that instructions/orders with respect to grant of loan in riverine area was flouted while disbursing the loan. It was the assumption of the informant that because of sufficient collateral surety not having been taken at the time of grant of loan, there is every possibility of the loan going bad. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that an absolutely frivolous case was lodged against the petitioner. The petitioner in his capacity as Area Manager had recommended for grant of loan after observing all the formalities in that regard. He further submits that the records will bear out that advocate for the Bank recommended the genuineness of the claim of the loanee. Loan was sanctioned against 10 bighas of land after, as has been argued, obtaining the approval of the lawyer as well as certificate of the Circle Officer of the Block. The loan was never misused and tractor was purchased. It was further submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the loan amount is being repaid regularly. That apart, it has been submitted that assuming that the repayment of loan is not regular, it would not warrant any criminal prosecution for the offences under Sections 408, 409, 419 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code. 6. During the course of investigation, it has been submitted, no material worth the name came which could warrant the prosecution of the petitioner, either for criminal breach of trust or for cheating as there is no deception and no fraudulent inducement to anybody for giving loan against valuable surety. Admittedly, Rs. 6. During the course of investigation, it has been submitted, no material worth the name came which could warrant the prosecution of the petitioner, either for criminal breach of trust or for cheating as there is no deception and no fraudulent inducement to anybody for giving loan against valuable surety. Admittedly, Rs. 2,25,000/- and odd has now been paid as against the loan. 7. Learned counsel for the Bank, however, disputes this assertion and submits that the amount which has been paid is only against the interest which accrued on the principal amount and nothing has been paid as against the principal amount. This Court is at a loss to understand as to how this can be treated as zero payment against the loan amount. 8. Be that as it may, considering the fact that formalities were complied with at the time of grant of loan and that the petitioner acted in the capacity of Area Manager and not Branch Manager, this Court is inclined to quash the criminal case as against the petitioner. The delayed payment of loan cannot be a ground for launching the prosecution against an employee of the Bank. The investigation clearly reveals that there was no intention on the part of the petitioner to misuse his position as a banker. 9. On the basis of the aforementioned facts, the order impugned dated 20.12.2010 is not fit to be sustained and is hereby quashed. 10. The application is allowed. 11. The petitioner is discharged in terms of Section 239 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. ?