JUDGMENT : SURESHWAR THAKUR, J. 1. An FIR No. 41 of 2010 of 7.04.2010 stood registered with Police Station Dharampur, District Solan, H.P. constituting therein commission of offences by the accused/petitioner herein under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 read with Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code. 2. The Investigating Officer initiated investigations thereon. On his holding investigations into the matter, he in his final report submitted under Section 173 of the Cr.P.C. before the Court concerned disclosed therein of the petitioner-accused committing offences under Section 420 read with Section 120-B of the IPC. The Court concerned ordered the framing of a charge against the accused/petitioner herein for committing offences punishable under Section 420 read with Section 120-B of the IPC. The record maintained by the Investigating Officer has been placed before this court for its perusal by the learned Deputy Advocate General. The principal accused/loanee Balbir Singh applied to the State Bank of Patiala, Dharampur, District Solan, H.P. for the sanctioning of in his favour a loan in a sum of Rs. 25,00,000/-. The sum aforesaid stood disbursed by the bank aforesaid in favour of the accused. However, the entire loan liabilities and assets of the State Bank of Patiala, Dharampur were on 22.05.2008 taken over by Dena Bank, Solan. The latter bank on the very same day disbursed a loan in a sum of Rs.1,25,00,000/- to the principal accused/loanee Balbir Singh. However, the management of Dena Bank, Solan elicited a legal opinion from the accused/petitioner herein qua occurrence/reflection in the apposite jamabandi of the property of the principal accused/loanee Balbir Singh standing mortgaged with it. The petitioner/accused on a perusal of the jamabandi placed before him by principal accused/loanee Balbir Singh reflecting therein a charge standing created upon the landed assets of the latter in favour of the bank aforesaid thereupon in consonance therewith purveyed an opinion to Dena Bank, Solan. However, the said opinion rendered by the petitioner herein/accused was found false sequeling the lodging of FIR against him. The Investigating Officer has palpably slighted the effect of disbursement of loan by Dena Bank, Solan to the principal accused/loanee Balbir Singh occurring prior to the rendition of an opinion by the petitioner herein/accused to it with a concomitant effect of its negating the inculpation of the petitioner/accused arising from the factum of hence no wrongful loss or wrongful gain sprouting from its rendition by the petitioner/accused.
The aforesaid fact gathers vehemence, vibrancy besides vigour from the imminent fact of the opinion if any subsequent to the disbursement of loan by Dena Bank Solan, in the sum aforesaid to the principal accused/loanee Balbir Singh, elicited by it from the petitioner/accused if false yet falsity if any ingraining it forestalls the inculpation of the petitioner herein/accused arouseable from the prima dona factum of its neither facilitating nor aiding the management of Dena Bank to preceding its rendition by the accused/petitioner disburse a loan constituted in the sum of Rs.1,25,00,000/- in favour of principal accused/loanee Balbir Singh. With the inference aforesaid standing gathered in negation of the petitioner/accused holding a conspiracy with principal accused/ loanee Balbir Singh for facilitating the latter to in his favour secure disbursement of a loan of Rs.1,25,00,000/- from Dena Bank, Solan, it was grossly inapt for the Investigating Officer merely on rendition of an opinion subsequent to the disbursement of a loan in favour of the principal accused/loanee Balbir Singh fasten an inclupatory role to the petitioner/accused, especially when no wrongful loss or wrongful gain occurred on its rendition by the petitioner herein/accused. Even if, falsity stood ingrained in the rendition of an opinion by the petitioner herein/accused to the management of Dena Bank, constituted by his rendering it on perusal of jamabandi placed before him by the principal accused Balbir Singh with a display therein of the assets of the latter standing mortgaged with Dena Bank, Solan yet with evidence standing not evinced from the material placed on record, of the petitioner herein colluding or holding a conspiracy with principal accused Balbir Singh or with the patwari concerned in the preparation of the fictitious jamabandi by the latter imperatively fillips a deduction of the petitioner herein/accused on principal accused/loanee Balbir Singh producing the relevant jamabandi before him with a display therein of his landed assets standing mortgaged with Dena Bank, Solan hence bonafide construing the apposite display therein to be authentic whereupon he obviously rendered an opinion bereft of any malafides. In sequel, his placing reliance upon the jamabandi produced before him by principal accused/loanee Balbir Singh stands uningrained with any malafides rather it appears to stand prodded by the imminent fact of the principal accused Balbir Singh procuring for perusal by the petitioner herein/accused a fictitious jamabandi from the patwari concerned in preparation whereof he had no evident role as a conspirator.
Even otherwise, the management of Dena Bank, Solan still can proceed to incorporate an apposite reflection in the jamabandi qua the assets of principal accused/loanee Balbir Singh of his assets standing mortgaged with it dehors a false display therein which bonafide stood relied upon by the petitioner herein/accused. Consequently, the instant petition is allowed and impugned order of 12.03.2015 rendered by the learned trial Court in Criminal Case No.773 of 2013, titled as State of H.P. versus Balbir Singh and others, so far as it orders for the framing of a charge against accused/petitioner Des Gautam for committing offences punishable under Section 420 read with Section 120-B of the IPC is quashed and set aside and he stands discharged. All pending applications also stand disposed of.