Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 497 (AP)

Indian Bank, Alamuru v. Nekkanti Veerraju

2023-03-03

PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA

body2023
JUDGMENT Prashant Kumar Mishra, Cj. - This petition, under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., would seek quashing of FIR No.114 of 2014 dated 19.07.2014 on the file of the Station House Officer, Alamuru Police Station, East Godavari District, preceded by a criminal complaint in C.C (Sr.) No.1572 of 2014, on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistate, Alamuru, against petitioners/accused Nos.2 to 4. 2. The complainant/informant/respondent No.1-Nekkanti Veerraju filed a complaint under Sections 190 and 200 Cr.P.C., alleging commission of offences by the accused under Sections 393, 409, 420, 468, 471 and 477-A read with Section 34 IPC, on which the Magistrate concerned sought for a report under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., whereafter Police concerned registered the subject FIR for the offences mentioned above. 3. It is alleged in the complaint that the accused persons including the present petitioners are officers of Indian Bank, a Nationalized Bank. The complainant approached the bank with a request to provide building loan for Rs.50 lakh in the year 2005; the bank agreed to sanction the loan and demanded to produce guarantee in the shape of property and person, to which the complainant agreed and produced L.2 and his four title deeds as detailed in the complaint. They put their signatures on number of documents without verifying the loan application and other documents merely on the dictates of the bank officials. Accused No.1 got opened false accounts in the name of L.W.3, L.W.8 and four others and also created guarantee by the complainant, which the complainant believed that they are required for building construction loan and, thus, he was misled by accused No.1. As the construction was in progress, the complainant needed more amount and requested the bank officials for the same, however, no amounts were given and instead the bank officials started pressurizing the complainant to repay the amount already disbursed to him. To the surprise of the complainant, he received information that Rs.2 lakh paid by him to accused No.1 has been utilized for his personal use and to his utter dismay, he was informed that he has never received loan for construction of house, but, it was shown to be 'KIRANA LOANS'. 4. To the surprise of the complainant, he received information that Rs.2 lakh paid by him to accused No.1 has been utilized for his personal use and to his utter dismay, he was informed that he has never received loan for construction of house, but, it was shown to be 'KIRANA LOANS'. 4. It is further alleged that the complainant, thereafter, approached another financial institution - DHFL for sanction of loan, but, in the meanwhile, the accused-bank had initiated proceedings under the SARFAESI Act, as a result of which DHFL also got dissuaded from giving a loan to the complainant and, thus, reputation of the complainant was badly damaged. 5. Law is well settled as to when writ court would exercise power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. or under Article 226 of the Constitution of India; to quash an FIR or criminal proceeding when the same is an abuse of process of law and/or the same has been lodged only to harass the accused. Recently, the Hon'ble Supreme Court reiterated the principle in paragraph 18 of the judgment in Kapil Agarwal and others v. Sanjay Sharma and others - (2021) 5 SCC 524 , which reads as under: 'However, at the same time, if it is found that the subsequent FIR is an abuse of process of law and/or the same has been lodged only to harass the accused, the same can be quashed in exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution or in exercise of powers under Section 482 CrPC. In that case, the complaint case will proceed further in accordance with the provisions of the CrPC.' 6. In Uma Shankar Gopalika v. State of Bihar - (2005) 10 SCC 336 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under: 'In our view petition of complaint does not disclose any criminal offence at all much less any offence either under Section 420 or Section 120-B IPC and the present case is a case of purely civil dispute between the parties for which remedy lies before a civil court by filing a properly constituted suit. In our opinion, in view of these facts allowing the police investigation to continue would amount to an abuse of the process of court and to prevent the same it was just and expedient for the High Court to quash the same by exercising the powers under Section 482 CrPC which it has erroneously refused.' 7. In our opinion, in view of these facts allowing the police investigation to continue would amount to an abuse of the process of court and to prevent the same it was just and expedient for the High Court to quash the same by exercising the powers under Section 482 CrPC which it has erroneously refused.' 7. Based on the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, a plain reading of the nature of allegations as mentioned in the complaint would reveal that the complainant has obtained loan from the accused-bank and its officials for construction of his house. He has also signed loan documents, created guarantees to them, both personal and property. Therefore, it is strange to believe that he and the guarantors have signed all the papers without reading any part thereof. 8. Admittedly, as mentioned in paragraph 26 of the complaint, proceedings under the SARFAESI Act, have already been initiated in September 2009; thus, the whole transaction is subject to scrutiny by the authorities under the SARFAESI Act. If at all the complainant has any grievance about the genuineness of the documents signed by him or the alleged forgery committed by the accused in creating the documents in the name of the complainant, the same can be raised as a defence before the competent authority in the proceedings that had already been initiated under the SARFAESI Act. As long as the said proceedings are pending, no criminal liability would arise against the accused persons including the present petitioners on a mere allegation in a private complaint that bank officials have obtained signatures of the complainant and others on blank papers. If the proceedings under the SARFAESI Act reveal prima facie finding that bank officials have committed forgery, it will remain open for the competent authority under the Act, to direct lodging of FIR. At present, allowing the Police concerned to investigate the matter would be an abuse of process and it may not be in the interest of justice to allow the Police to investigate the matter. If the allegations made in the complaint, on which FIR is registered, are allowed to be investigated in a routine manner, then, every loan defaulter would start lodging FIR against bank officials. Loan transaction is always a civil transaction. If the allegations made in the complaint, on which FIR is registered, are allowed to be investigated in a routine manner, then, every loan defaulter would start lodging FIR against bank officials. Loan transaction is always a civil transaction. Therefore, allowing prosecution of bank officials, in relation to a matter where the allegation is of obtaining signatures of the borrower on blank forms, would set a wrong trend of misuse of criminal law. 9. Therefore, this court has no hesitation in quashing FIR No. 114 of 2014 dated 19.07.2014 on the file of the Station House Officer, Alamuru Police Station, East Godavari District, against petitioners/accused Nos.2 to 4 and the same is accordingly quashed. 10. Criminal Petition is allowed. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.