Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 23 (UTT)

Kamlesh Patel v. State of Uttarakhand

2014-02-11

U.C.DHYANI

body2014
JUDGMENT U.C. Dhyani, J. 1. Since both these applications under Section 482 Cr. P.C. arise out of same first information report and the same charge-sheet, therefore, they are being decided by this common judgment and order for the sake of brevity. 2. The applicants, by means of present petition moved under Section 482 Cr. P.C. seek to quash the charge-sheet dated 07.06.2010 as well as the entire proceedings of Criminal Case No. 93 of 2010, captioned as State vs. Deepak Verma and others, under Section 406 of IPC, pending in the Court of Civil Judge (J.D.) Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Kirti Nagar, District Tehri Garhwal. 3. Respondent no. 2, the Branch Manager of Punjab National Bank, Deoprayag, District Tehri Garhwal lodged a first information report against eight named accused persons including the present applicants for the offences punishable under Sections 406 and 402 IPC. After the investigation, a charge-sheet was submitted against six accused persons. Cognizance was taken by the learned Magistrate on the said charge-sheet. The applicants were summoned to face the trial for the selfsame offences. Aggrieved against the same, present applications under Section 482 Cr. P.C. were filed. 4. It was written in the first information report that the accused persons obtained cash credit limits and term loans from the respondent bank in the year 2009. The applicants executed mortgage-deed, agreement letter and other documents in favour of the bank. The applicants agreed to comply with the conditions stipulated in the agreement, but they did not comply with the same. In other words, the applicants did not adhere to the terms and conditions of the agreement. They were liable to pay back the money to the bank along with interest. While applicant Kamlesh Patel obtained the loan for running the business of KK Electricals, fellow applicant Pankaj Bisht obtained the loan for running the business of M/S Bisht Laghu Udyog. Instead, they utilized the loan money for constructing duplex houses. 5. Learned counsel for the applicants drew the attention of this Court towards the extract of charge-sheet, wherein it was mentioned, in unequivocal terms, that Kamlesh Patel and Pankaj Bisht have returned the loan amount along with interest to the respondent-bank. In other words, nothing was outstanding against the applicants. Attention of this Court is also drawn towards annexure-6, which was the statement of the Manager, Bank of Baroda, Deoprayag, recorded under Section 161 of Cr. In other words, nothing was outstanding against the applicants. Attention of this Court is also drawn towards annexure-6, which was the statement of the Manager, Bank of Baroda, Deoprayag, recorded under Section 161 of Cr. P.C. In such statement, it was stated that nothing was outstanding against the present applicants and the money due to the bank was repaid by them. 6. In such a situation, no offence punishable under Section 406 IPC was made out against the applicants. 7. A similar view was taken by this Court on 29.06.2009 in Criminal Misc. Application No. 964 of 2008, captioned as Ajay Kumar Saini vs. Sukhvinder Singh and another. This Court is inclined to reproduce one of the paragraph of the aforesaid judgment herein below to fortify its decision which is being taken in the instant petition: “A loan transaction is a pure, plain and simple transaction of a pure civil nature and, therefore, the refusal to repay the loan amount cannot amount to the commission of any offence under any law, much less an offence punishable U/s 406 I.P.C. Converting the aforesaid simple loan transaction into the commission of a criminal offence undoubtedly is a gross abuse of the process of law.” 8. The case of the applicants is far more simple than the case of Ajai Kumar Saini (supra). Here, they have repaid the loan amount to the bank and nothing was outstanding against them as per Bank’s own admission. 9. In view of the aforesaid discussion, both the applications under Section 482 Cr. P.C. deserve to be allowed and are accordingly allowed. The charge-sheet dated 07.06.2010 as well as the entire proceedings of Criminal Case No. 93 of 2010, captioned as State vs. Deepak Verma and others, under Section 406 of IPC, pending in the Court of Civil Judge (J.D.) Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Kirti Nagar, District Tehri Garhwal are hereby quashed qua applicants.