Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 1309 (JHR)

Vinod Kumar v. State of Jharkhand

2023-11-02

SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI

body2023
JUDGMENT : SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI, J. 1. Heard Mr. Anish Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Sanjay Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the State and Mr. Ashok Kumar Yadav, learned counsel for opposite party no. 2. 2. This petition has been filed for quashing of the entire criminal proceedings including the order taking cognizance dated 23.05.2012 passed in G.R. Case No. 730 of 2001 arising out of Adityapur P.S. Case No. 244 of 2001, pending in the Court of the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Seraikella. 3. The FIR was lodged alleging therein that M/s Laxmi Industries executed a lease deed with Adityapur Industrial Area Development Authority (AIADA) dated 25.07.1981 for an industrial plot C-47, Phase-II, Adityapur Industrial Area, Jamshedpur in the month of March, 1983 the Bihar State Financial Corporation (BSFC), Patna sanctioned a term loan of Rs.7.65 Lakhs to M/s Laxmi Industries for setting up Oil Mill on the said industrial plot no. C-47. All legal formalities were completed and the partners availed working capital loan from Allahabad Bank and entered into an agreement. It was further alleged that M/s Laxmi Industrial had been allotted second plot no. C-46 by AIADA vide letter dated 12.08.1985 and the partners of M/s Laxmi Industries approached the Corporation considered the additional loan proposal and sanctioned Rs.22 Lakhs on 23.03.1987 for expansion of Oil Mill on plot No. C-47 and for setting up of Dal Mill on plot no. C-46, however, by omission and in connivance with the official of the Corporation, plot no. C-46 could not be included in the memorandum of sanction of additional loan of Rs.22 Lakhs. It was also alleged that the petitioner had prepared the memorandum for sanction of additional loan and did not include plot no. C-46 in the memorandum prepared on 22.03.1987 despite the fact that there was information available for including the same in the memorandum for sanction of additional loan, Sri R.S. Singh recommended for sanction of additional loan of Rs.22 Lakhs based on the memorandum prepared by the petitioner which does not include plot No. C-46 and ultimately the loan was sanctioned and disbursed. It was further alleged that the petitioner and Sri R.S. Singh were issued show cause for not including plot no. C-46 in the memorandum while recommending the case for sanction of the loan to the unit. It was further alleged that the petitioner and Sri R.S. Singh were issued show cause for not including plot no. C-46 in the memorandum while recommending the case for sanction of the loan to the unit. It was also alleged that the petitioner and Sri R.S. Singh submitted their replies to show cause, however, the same was not found satisfactory and due to intentional omission in not including the plot no. C-46 in the memorandum has resulted in heavy loss to the Corporation for which the petitioner and Sri R.S. Singh are responsible for such omission. It was further alleged that the promoter had well conceived plan of dishonest intention to cause wrongful gain to themselves and wrongful loss to the Corporation by entering into the criminal conspiracy with the officials of the Corporation and not have only defrauded the Corporation but also the bank and on the basis of the aforesaid facts, the present FIR was lodged. 4. Mr. Anish Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there is allegation that Plot no. C-46 was not incorporated in the memorandum of sanction, which was prepared by the petitioner who happened to be the then Branch Manager of the BSFC. He further submits that during the pendency of this petition, entire amount has been settled and the matter is still pending before this Court. He further submits that the mistake has occurred due to some clerical error and in view of that, the entire criminal proceedings may kindly be quashed. 5. Mr. Ashok Kumar Yadav, learned counsel for opposite party no. 2-BSFC submits that the counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the BSFC wherein it has been disclosed that there are two accounts involved in the present case, namely, M/s Laxmi Industries at Industrial Area, Adityapur, Jamshedpur and M/s Hari Agro Mills Pvt. Ltd., at AIADA, Adityapur, Jamshedpur. By way of referring paragraph 13 of the counter affidavit, he submits that both the accounts have been settled after payment being made by both the aforesaid units and No Dues Certificates with respect to aforesaid both units have also been issued and the answering opposite party does not want to proceed with the present case. 6. Mr. Sanjay Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the State submits that it appears that the dispute is between the petitioner and opposite party no. 6. Mr. Sanjay Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the State submits that it appears that the dispute is between the petitioner and opposite party no. 2 and in view of the counter affidavit, it appears that the dispute is settled. 7. In view of the above facts, it appears that the mistake has occurred due to some clerical error and inadvertently plot no. C-46 was not incorporated in memorandum of sanction and subsequently two accounts have already been settled. Further, opposite party no. 2, who is the informant, does not want to proceed with the matter in view of the fact that the accounts have been settled. It appears that there is no public element involved in this matter and to allow the case to continue will amount to abuse of process of law. Reference may be made to the judgments passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and Another, (2012) 10 SCC 303 and in the case of Narinder Singh and Others vs. State of Punjab and Another, (2014) 6 SCC 466 . 8. In view of the aforesaid facts, reasons and analysis, the entire criminal proceedings including the order taking cognizance dated 23.05.2012 passed in G.R. Case No. 730 of 2001 arising out of Adityapur P.S. Case No. 244 of 2001, pending in the Court of the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Seraikella are quashed. 9. Accordingly, this petition is allowed and disposed of.