Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2021 DIGILAW 1531 (RAJ)

Kirti Bordia v. State of Rajasthan

2021-08-17

PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI

body2021
ORDER 1. In wake of second surge in the COVID-19 cases, abundant caution is being maintained, while hearing the matters in Court, for the safety of all concerned. 2. These criminal misc. petitions under Section 482 Cr.P.C. have been preferred claiming the following reliefs: "Hence it is humbly and most respectfully prayed that this petition of the petitioner may kindly be allowed and the FIR No.398/2016 u/s 467, 468, 471, 420 & 120B of IPC P.S. Kotwali Bhilwara, quo to the petitioner, may kindly be quashed and set aside and the respondent state may kindly be directed to release the petitioner under Section 169 CRPC. Any other order which Your Lordship deem it just and proper may be granted in favour of the petitioner." 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that a false complaint had been lodged against the present petitioners, only on the ground that petitioner-Smt. Kirti Bordia was the Chairman of Bhilwara Mahila Urban Co-operative Bank, and had presided over the Executive Committee/Board of Directors Meeting, when the loan file of the complainant was recommended, and a loan to the tune of Rs.35,00,000/- was sanctioned; petitioner-Ravindra Kumar Bordia is the husband of petitioner-Smt. Kirti Bordia, and he was simply working as a Consultant with the Bank. So far as petitioner-Ravindra Kumar Bordia is concerned, learned counsel submitted that he has been implicated in this case only because of his being the husband of the then Chairman of the Bank on the pretext that they both were working hand in glove with each other, even when, he did not play any role in the process of recommending, sanctioning or disbursing the loan amount in question. Learned counsel thus, submitted that the present petitioners have no other role, particularly, commission of a crime, in the present matter, as alleged in the impugned FIR. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submitted that the loan application was submitted in the name of complainant, and her son Rameshwar Dhakad and her husband Rama Dhakad were co-applicants, and all the required and related documents, alongwith requisite statements were submitted for the purpose of processing the loan file in question. 5. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submitted that the loan application was submitted in the name of complainant, and her son Rameshwar Dhakad and her husband Rama Dhakad were co-applicants, and all the required and related documents, alongwith requisite statements were submitted for the purpose of processing the loan file in question. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners also submitted that the investigating agency too has found that the amount of 35,00,000/- in question has been consumed and utilized by the complainant herself and her family members, which clearly shows that the present petitioners have been wrongly arrayed as accused in this case. 6. Learned Public Prosecutor however, opposed the aforesaid submissions made on behalf of the petitioners. 7. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted before this Court the factual report of the case, according to which, approval of the loan on the same property has been done twice, and without disclosing the loans to each other, the amount in question has been sanctioned, in connivance with all the parties. The said factual report is taken on record. 8. Heard learned counsel for the parties as well as perused the record of the case. 9. On a bare reading of the factual report and other evidence gathered during the course of investigation, it is apparent on the face of the record that a prima facie case has been found to be made out against the present petitioners. Thus, no case for making any interference by this Court under the inherent jurisdiction of Section 482 Cr.P.C. is made out. 10. Consequently, the present petitions are dismissed. All pending applications also stand dismissed.