JUDGMENT : 1. Through the medium of instant petition filed under Section 561-A Cr.P.C, petitioner seeks quashing of order dated 03rd June, 2017, passed by Special Judge Anti-Corruption, Jammu in case titled, “State Vs. Ram Lal Gupta and ors.”, by virtue of which charges for commission of offences under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 201, 120-B RPC read with 5(2) P.C. Act have been framed against the accused persons except accused No.3 (respondent No.4 herein), namely, Munish Gupta. Petitioner also prays for his discharge from the said challan. 2. The facts of the case are that the petitioner is Director of M/s Millennium Econometrics Research Publication Pvt. Ltd., 15-C Ext. 1st Floor, Gandhi Nagar, Jammu. The petitioner is an individual and the company is two different legal entities. Under the Priority Sector-e-Advances Scheme (PSAS), the company had applied for grant of loan from the UCO Bank through its Branch at Railway Road, Gandhi Nagar, Jammu for sanction of term loan of Rs.10.00 lacs and CC limit of Rs.10.00 lacs under the CGTM Scheme of Govt. of India. The proposal for grant of loan was initiated and was supported by the Primary Security of Fixed Assets for Rs.10.70 lacs and Collateral Security of Rs.54.47 lacs. Even providing sufficient security and even in view of the policy of the Government for grant of collateral free loan, the Bank Manager insisted for the petitioner to arrange a third party mortgage against the bank norms/clause. The collateral security by way of mortgage of immovable property of 12 Kanals and 05 Marlas of plot situated at Village Lakshmanpur was offered, which was refused by the bank on the ground that the distance of the collateral security is greater than 9 Kms. This too is against the RBI norms, which has dropped this practice from January, 2005. While the matter was being discussed with the Branch Manager, the accused No.3, namely, Munish Gupta, who was incidentally present on spot intervened and on his own offer to arrange collateral security from out of his own contacts. He further assured that he will take care of due diligence, legal opinion and valuation from the approved lawyer/evaluator. The petitioner has never signed any document pertaining to the arrangement or attestation of mortgage of the land arranged by the said accused No.3 and all the transactions ensued between accused No.3 and accused No. 5. 3. He further assured that he will take care of due diligence, legal opinion and valuation from the approved lawyer/evaluator. The petitioner has never signed any document pertaining to the arrangement or attestation of mortgage of the land arranged by the said accused No.3 and all the transactions ensued between accused No.3 and accused No. 5. 3. It is stated in the instant petition that a term loan of Rs.8.00 lacs and CC Limit of Rs. 10.00 lacs was sanctioned. Initially, there was suppose to be a moratorium period of 12 months for repayment of loan, however, the Bank made deductions from very first month of sanction of loan. This resulted in breach of the conditions of the loan. The company raised a dispute on 30th June, 2008, bringing it to the notice of the Bank that it was indulging in over charging of installments. Subsequently, an offer was made to the Bank to settle the loan as per the RBI norms and policies. The matter was delayed by the UCO Bank on flimsy grounds and different tracks. The only misfortune of the petitioner is that he faced the following situation during this period:- (i) From 20th April, 2006 to 15th July, 2006, he was struggling with emergent health situation of his cancer suffering father, who died on 25th June, 2006. (ii) He relied on accused No. 3 as a business-main deal. (iii) He relied on an expert Advocate on panel of UCO Bank, who gave his legal opinion. (iv) He relied on the UCO Bank Team of Officers, who are supposed to be experts of their work profile. (v) He relied on expertise of the Evaluator on panel of UCO Bank. (vi) He relied on his good intent to pay back as per the sanction letter and projected corporate performance. 4. It is also stated in the petition that the loan advanced by the UCO Bank is fully secured and the collateral security arranged by accused No.3 for “Borrower Company” had no meaning from day one as the Personal Guarantee of applicant accused No. 4 based on his net worth is sufficient (>415%) to discharge the legally determined liability of “Borrower Company”. There is neither any presumption of loss nor any loss to Bank as such. There is neither any presumption of loss nor any loss to Bank as such. However, there is an economic dispute between the “Borrower Company” and UCO Bank, which is subject-matter of economic legislations including Reserve Bank of India Guidelines. It is asserted that the UCO Bank cannot be allowed to mask its own mistakes by initiating a criminal action against the “Borrower Company”, whose bonafides are evident. The civil dispute is sub-judice before the Court of learned District Judge, Jammu. UCO Bank has filed a Civil Suit for recovery of Rs.22,50,780.14/- (Rupees Twenty Two Lacs Fifty Thousand Seven Hundred Eighty and Fourteen Paisa only) is pending before the Court of learned District Judge, Jammu. Both the parties have their claim and counter claims against each other. The liability against each party is yet to be determined within the law; hence, a Criminal Proceedings on the basis of presumption of loss to public money is not maintained. 5. Accordingly, it has been prayed that the order dated 03rd June, 2016, passed by the Special Judge Anti-Corruption, Jammu in case titled, “State Vs. Ram Lal Gupta and ors.”, by virtue of which charges for commission of offences under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 201, 120-B RPC read with 5(2) P.C. Act have been framed against the accused persons except accused No. 3 (respondent No. 4 herein), namely, Munish Gupta, be quashed. 6. Counsel for petitioner while arguing the matter has reiterated all grounds taken in memo of petition. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the judgment of Supreme Court rendered in case titled, “State of Maharashtra, Etc. Etc. Vs. Som Nath Thapa, Etc. Etc.”, reported in 1996 AIR (SC) 1744; and in case titled Sardool Singh v. Nasib Kaur reported in 1987 SCC (Cri ) 672. 7. Whereas counsel for respondent has taken a preliminary objection that order of framing charge by Special Judge, is neither revisable nor can be challenged in petition u/s 561-A Cr.P.C. 8. I have considered the rival contentions and law on the subject. 9. The allegations against the petitioner as are evident from the reading of prosecution story is that a loan of Rs.65.70 lacs was sanctioned by UCO Bank, Railway Road, Jammu in favour of A-1, A-2 and A-4 against stocks and personal guarantee of Kabla Singh S/o Sansar Singh R/o Birpur, Tehsil Samba. 9. The allegations against the petitioner as are evident from the reading of prosecution story is that a loan of Rs.65.70 lacs was sanctioned by UCO Bank, Railway Road, Jammu in favour of A-1, A-2 and A-4 against stocks and personal guarantee of Kabla Singh S/o Sansar Singh R/o Birpur, Tehsil Samba. However, account numbers of all the three above mentioned accused become NPA due to which securitization notices were sent to Sh. Kabla Singh who stood guarantor for the loans availed by them for recovery of loan amount, but Kabla Singh denied having given any guarantee or having mortgaged his land in favour of UCO Bank to secure the advances of the Bank as he was illiterate and blind. This resulted in a loss to the tune of Rs. 65.70 lacs to the bank. After the registration of FIR for commission of offences under Sections 419, 420, 465, 467, 468, 471, 201, 120-B RPC read with 5(2) P.C Act, the investigation commenced during the course of which relevant record was seized and statements of witnesses u/s 164-A and 161 Cr. P.C were recorded. It came to the fore that aforesaid three accused have obtained cash credit loan of Rs. 25.00 lacs, 20.00 lacs and 18.00 lacs respectively by way of fraudulent means from the UCO Bank by providing fake and fictitious Fard-a-Intikhabs of land measuring 16 Kanals belonging to Kabla Singh and used it for mortgaging/guarantor and thereafter obtained cash credit loan to the tune of Rs. 63.00 lacs. It is further alleged that Kabla Singh has been shown a young man of 31 years old and has signed in English but the actual Kabla Singh is of 70 years old, blind and illiterate and uses thumb impression for documentation or deeds. The investigation reveals that he had neither applied for issuance of Fard-a-Intikhabs of his land nor approached any Patwari or revenue officer for the said purpose, however, the seized record shows that three Fard-a-Intikhabs of land belong to Kabla Singh were issued on 12.05.2006 (05 Kanals) for facilitating to A-1 and A-2 respectively. Thus, three Fard-a-Intikhabs of land measuring 16 Kanals in total were attested by Tehsildar Settlement, Jammu and the land in question was mortgaged against cash credit loan sanctioned on 09th June, 2006 by Padam Singh Choudhary (A-5), the then Sr. Manager, UCO Bank after completing personally all the necessary formalities. Thus, three Fard-a-Intikhabs of land measuring 16 Kanals in total were attested by Tehsildar Settlement, Jammu and the land in question was mortgaged against cash credit loan sanctioned on 09th June, 2006 by Padam Singh Choudhary (A-5), the then Sr. Manager, UCO Bank after completing personally all the necessary formalities. The investigation further revealed that Bansi Lal (A-6) has impersonated as Kabla Singh before the office of Sub-Registrar, Samba for mortgaging fraudulently land of Kabla Singh on the persuasion of Munish Kumar Gupta (A-3) son of A-1 on some extraneous consideration and Riyaz Hussain (A-7) and Javed Ahmed (A-8) influenced by A-3 also for some monetary consideration identified Kabla Singh in the office of Sub-Registrar, Samba. The investigation conducted in the matter further established that A-3 in connivance with Bashir Ahmed (A-9), the then Patwari Halqa, Birpur and A-5 managed three fake and fictitious Farad-a-Intikhabs fraudulently of the land measuring 16 Kanals comprised under Khasra No. 259 min which was a Ghair Mumkin Khad (Nallah) and common property in which actual share of Kabla Singh was only 06 Kanals and 11 Marlas and thereby facilitating the same to A-1, A-2 and A-4 to obtain cash credit loan. According to the prosecution an amount of Rs. 0.2 lacs was paid by A-3 to A-9 for issuance of two Fard-a-Intikhabs of land measuring 08 Kanals and 05 Kanals for extending loan facility to A-1 and A-2 and Rs. 80.000/- for providing Fard-a-Intikhab of land measuring 03 Kanals for extending loan facility to A-4 who had paid Rs. 50,000/- by cheque to A-3 and Rs.30,000/- was adjusted as his outstanding fee. It is also alleged that the accused persons in order to accomplish their acts of omissions and commissions hatched a criminal conspiracy between them and fraudulently obtained cash credit loan from UCO Bank Branch Railway Road, Gandhi Nagar, Jammu thereby causing a huge loss to public money as well to Kabla Singh. After completion of investigation, challan against 9 accused was filed before Special Judge Anticorruption. The petitioner is one of the accused persons. After hearing the arguments the Court below ordered for framing of charges against all accused persons and while framing the charge on 03rd June, 2017 against accused-petitioner has held as under ( Relevant Para) :- “Ld. After completion of investigation, challan against 9 accused was filed before Special Judge Anticorruption. The petitioner is one of the accused persons. After hearing the arguments the Court below ordered for framing of charges against all accused persons and while framing the charge on 03rd June, 2017 against accused-petitioner has held as under ( Relevant Para) :- “Ld. Counsel for accused No. 4 has contended that material on record does not show existence of a prima facie case against A-4, who is not a party to the mortgage deed registered in the office of Sub-Registrar, Samba in respect of land mortgaged by virtue of said deed for obtaining loan. According to the learned counsel the entire process of obtaining loan was managed by accused-Munish Gupta who was the client of A-4 and therefore no criminality can be attributed to A-4. It is true that as per photocopy of mortgage deed, A-4 is not a party to the said deed, however, the entire sequence of facts narrated above and documentary record in the file at this stage do suggest the involvement of A-4 in the crime because Fard-a-Intikhab on the basis of which loan was sanctioned in his favour was a forged document besides the actual owner of the land namely Kabla Singh was impersonated by A-6 at the time of registration of mortgage deed of A-4 in the office of Sub-Registrar, Samba, so the foundation facts with regard to the sanctioning of loan in favour of A-4 were based on alleged fraud, cheating and forgery in respect of which he cannot feigned ignorance by arguing that no offence is made out against him. Thus in my opinion there is ground for presuming that A-4 has committed the offence mentioned above. For the foregoing discussion, it appears that a prima facie case to frame a charge for offences U/Ss 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 201, 120-B RPC read with5(2) P.C. Act is made out against the accused. Charge for aforesaid offences are accordingly framed against the accused except against A-3 and memo of charges were read over and explained to them to which they pleaded not guilty. File to come up on 09.06.2017 for framing charge against A-3.” 10. Charge for aforesaid offences are accordingly framed against the accused except against A-3 and memo of charges were read over and explained to them to which they pleaded not guilty. File to come up on 09.06.2017 for framing charge against A-3.” 10. Firstly, I will deal with preliminary objection raised by counsel for respondent No.1 that order of framing of charges by Special Judge Anticorruption Court, is an interlocutory order and neither revision nor petition under 561-A Cr.P.C is maintainable. 11. Now law in this regard has been finally settled by three judges bench of Apex court in 2018 (5) Scale 269 in case titled Asian Resurfacing of Road Agency Pvt. Ltd & Anr. Vs. CBI, wherein it is held as under;- “36. Thus, we declare the law to be that order framing charge is not purely an interlocutory order nor a final order. Jurisdiction of the High Court is not barred irrespective of the label of a petition, be it under Sections 397 or 482 Cr.P.C. or Article 227 of the Constitution. However, the said jurisdiction is to be exercised consistent with the legislative policy to ensure expeditious disposal of a trial without the same being in any manner hampered. Thus considered, the challenge to an order of charge should be entertained in a rarest of rare case only to correct a patent error of jurisdiction and not to re-appreciate the matter. Even where such challenge is entertained and stay is granted, the matter must be decided on day-to-day basis so that stay does not operate for an unduly long period.” 12. There are specific allegations based on facts that petitioner in conspiracy with other accused procured FARAD –A-INIKHAB in his favour in respect of land measuring 3 kanal in Khasra No.259 min situated at village Birpur belonging to Kabla Singh that was attested and prepared in a fraudulent manner by concealment of material facts by accused Bashir Ahmed-Patwari and accused Padamdev Singh Chowdhary-Manger UCO Bank Branch Railway road Gandhi Nagar, thereby paving way for mortgage of said land in the office of Sub Registrar Samba; this deed was registered in the office of Sub Registrar Samba on 24.5.2006 where accused Bansi Lal impersonated as Kabla Singh, who is blind and 70 years old and was identified by accused Riyaz Ahmed. Due to this fraud, petitioner succeeded in obtaining credit loan of Rs.18 lakh from UCO Bank; further due to this fraud and dishonest act, the account of petitioner became NPA thereby causing wrongful loss to bank. 13. There is prima facie evidence in this regard in file. Petitioner is main gainer in this fraud. The defense taken that loan advanced by the UCO Bank is fully secured and the collateral security arranged by the accused No.3 for “Borrower Company” had no meaning from day one as the Personal Guarantee of applicant accused No. 4 based on his net worth is sufficient (> 415 %) to discharge the legally determined liability of “Borrower Company”; that there is neither any presumption of loss nor any loss to Bank as such, are not tenable at this stage. Because all these pleas are based on facts, which this court cannot consider in this petition. 14. Further argument that civil case filed by UCO Bank for recovery of Rs.22,50,780.14/-(Rupees Twenty Two Lacs Fifty Thousand Seven Hundred Eighty and Fourteen Paisa only) is pending before the Court of learned District Judge, Jammu, so criminal proceeding are not maintainable, this argument also does not hold good, because when there is criminal elements in obtaining loan, then both civil and criminal litigation can go simultaneously. 15. All the arguments advanced and grounds taken are pertaining to appreciation of facts, which this court cannot conduct in view of the judgment in Asian Resurfacing of Road Agency Pvt. Ltd & Anr. (supra), wherein it is held that the challenge to an order of charge should be entertained in a rarest of rare case only to correct a patent error of jurisdiction and not to re-appreciate the matter. 16. It is not the case of petitioner that there is patent error of jurisdiction in order of court below in framing charges. 17. The law cited by counsel for petitioner is not applicable in present set of case. As in “State of Maharashtra, Etc. Etc. Vs. Som Nath Thapa, Etc. Etc.”, reported in 1996 AIR (SC) 1744, the Court was dealing with conspiracy of Bombay Blast case and in case titled Sardool Singh v. Nasib Kaur, reported in 1987 SCC (Cri ) 672, the court was dealing with subject that when civil suit with regard to validity of WILL, criminal proceeding cannot be launched. Etc. Vs. Som Nath Thapa, Etc. Etc.”, reported in 1996 AIR (SC) 1744, the Court was dealing with conspiracy of Bombay Blast case and in case titled Sardool Singh v. Nasib Kaur, reported in 1987 SCC (Cri ) 672, the court was dealing with subject that when civil suit with regard to validity of WILL, criminal proceeding cannot be launched. Both these cases are distinguishable on facts as well as on law. 18. This court while exercising the power under inherent jurisdiction, cannot stifle the legitimate prosecution. High Court cannot re-examine evidence in detail to see as to whether charge for alleged offence is made out or not. 19. In view of above, this petition is dismissed. Interim stay is vacated. File of court below be sent back for conducting trial.