Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 59 (HP)

Joginder Singh v. State of Himachal Pradesh

2025-01-06

VIRENDER SINGH

body2025
JUDGMENT : Virender Singh, J. 1. Apprehending his arrest, in Case FIR No.22 of 2024 dated 12 th July, 2024, (hereinafter referred to as the ‘FIR in question’), registered under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafterreferred to as ‘IPC’), with Police Station New Shimla, District Shimla, H.P., the applicant has filed the present application, under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter referred to as ‘BNSS’). 2. By way of the present application, the applicant has sought the indulgence of this Court to direct the I.O/police of Police Station New Shimla, to release him, on bail, in the event of his arrest, in the above-mentioned case/FIR. 3. According to the applicant, he is having deep roots in the society and FIR in question has falsely been registered against him by the police. 4. It is the case of the applicant that he had obtained KCC loan of Rs. 8,00,000/- in the year 2017, and had tendered his land papers correctly, but, there was some connivance between the bank officials and the guarantor, about which, the applicant was not having any knowledge. 5. According to the applicant, he is innocent and has falsely been implicated, in the present case. 6. Certain undertakings have been given on behalf of the applicant, for which, the applicant is ready to abide by, in case, any direction is issued to the police/I.O., in this case. 7. When put to notice, the police has filed the status report disclosing therein, that on 12 th July, 2024, a copy of order, passed under Section 156(3) of Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the ‘CrPC’), was received from the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Court No. III, Shimla, alongwith the complaint, moved by Virender Kumar Chauhan, who is the Manager of Himachal Pradesh Gramin Bank, Khalini, Shimla. 8. In the said complaint, the following facts have been mentioned: “1. That the complainant Bank is a Body Corporate Constituted under Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of undertaking) Act No. 5, 1970 having its Head Office at Jail Road District Mandi, Himachal Pradesh and amongst other Branch Offices, a Branch at Khalini, District Shimla in the State of Himachal Pradesh. 2. That Virender Kumar Chauhan of the complainant Bank who has signed this complaint is the Principal Officer/Branch Manager/Assistant General Manager of the Bank. 2. That Virender Kumar Chauhan of the complainant Bank who has signed this complaint is the Principal Officer/Branch Manager/Assistant General Manager of the Bank. He is constituted Attorney of the Complainant Bank and as such is competent to sign the proceedings, affidavit, Vakalatnama to engage advocate and is empowered to institute the complaint and as such the present complaint is instituted by Sh. Virender Kumar Chauhan who is presently posted as Regional Manager District Hamirpur (HP) and the present complaint instituted on the basis of information derived from the records of the plaintiff Bank. A copy of the Power of Attorney is filed herewith. 3. That the respondent No. 1 approached to the complainant Bank on dated 20.03.2017 and requested the complainant Bank to grant a KCC loan of Rs 8,00,000/- for agriculture produce and the respondent has also submitted his loan application along with revenue papers (Jamabandi). On perusal of the loan application, the complainant bank has agreed to grant a KCC Limit under agricultural loan scheme of the complainant bank and as per the KCC loan Scheme of the Bank, the complainant bank has pre- sanctioned KCC Limit and the respondent was further requested to create charge under Schedule I of HP Agricultural Credit Operation and Miscellaneous Provision (Banks) Act 1972 in the revenue record. 4. That the respondents after entering the charge of the bank in the jamabandi submitted and has also fulfilled codal formalities for the KCC loan of Rs. 8 lakh. On the request of the respondent the complainant Bank agreed to grant a KCC Loan of Rs. 8,00,000/- on the interest @ 13.75% per annum with half yearly rests or at such other rates as may be revised by the complainant Bank from time to time. 5. That the respondent No. 2 executed in favour of the complainant Bank a continuing Guarantee for the due repayment of the said loan as mentioned herein below. The respondent No. 2 executed a Deed of Guarantee and thereby secured his personal Guarantee for the aforesaid loan amount alongwith interest and other charges as payable by the borrowers. 5. That the respondent No. 2 executed in favour of the complainant Bank a continuing Guarantee for the due repayment of the said loan as mentioned herein below. The respondent No. 2 executed a Deed of Guarantee and thereby secured his personal Guarantee for the aforesaid loan amount alongwith interest and other charges as payable by the borrowers. The respondent No. 2 in consideration of the Bank sanctioning the above said loan to the defendants executed a Deed of continuing Guarantee in favour of the complainant Bank on dated 24.03.2017 at Khalini Branch, District Shimla vide which the respondent No. 2 had made himself liable to pay the amount outstanding in the loan account of the defendants to the complainant Bank jointly and severally. He had agreed that the Guarantee shall be co existence with the respondent and also agreed that any acknowledge of debt payable to the complainant by the defendants or their agent shall be binding on him in the same manner and to the same effect. 6. That to secure the due repayment of the said loan together with interest, cost, charges and expenses, the defendant executed in favour of the compliant Bank and delivered to it the following documents: a) Loan application dated 17.03.2017. b) Declaration under Section 6(1) of HP Agricultural Credit Operation and Miscellaneous Provisions (Banks) Act 1972 along with Jamabandi for the year 2016-17. c) Demand Promissory note for loan of Rs. 8 lakh dated 17.03.2017. d) Hypothecation for loan of Rs. 8 lakh dated 24.03.2017. e) Agreement of guarantee for loan of Rs. 8 lakh dated 24.03.2017 executed by respondent No. 2. f) Letter of undertaking for loan of Rs. 8 lakh dated 24.03.2017 executed by respondent No. 1. 7. That all the documents referred to above and executed by the respondents were duly filled up. read over and explained to the respondent concerned who appended their respective signatures on the same as fully described in the preceding para after understanding and accepting the same to be true and correct. The signatory to the complaint on the basis of the record confirms the genuineness of signatures of the respondent at the respective place on the documents and further confirms the identity of the person depositing the documents. 8. The signatory to the complaint on the basis of the record confirms the genuineness of signatures of the respondent at the respective place on the documents and further confirms the identity of the person depositing the documents. 8. That the respondent No. 1 obtained loan under KCC Scheme of the Bank and has submitted Jamabandi of his land comprised in Khata Khatuni No. 3/13 Khasra No. 135, 136, 139, 191, 196, 203, 204, 140, 141 Kita 9, situated at Mahol Bhalech-II, Patwar Circle Sandhu, Tehsil Theog, District Shimla, Himachal Pradesh. It is necessary to submit here that the respondent No. 1 has submitted fake revenue papers i.e. Jamabandi and forged/fake the signature of concerned patwari as well as Tehsildar. It is also relevant to mention here that as per revenue record, there was no such mutation/rapat marked in the revenue papers and the respondent himself manufactured the fake declaration under Section 6(1) and Jamabandi with the intention to cheat and defraud the complainant bank. It is also necessary to mention here that the respondent forged the signatures of the concerned Patwari and entered the Rapat on the Jamabandi. The respondent also forged the signature of Sub Registrar-cum-Tehsildar Theog, by putting the forged stamp on the documents so that it may appear genuine and submitted to the complainant bank. 9. That the respondent No. 2 is also hand in glove with the respondent No. 1, by preparing and manufacturing forged documents because the respondent No. 2 has also obtained a KCC limit from the complainant bank on the basis of fake/forged documents. It is necessary to mention here that the respondents in connivance with each other manufactured the fake documents and also obtained loan on the basis for or forged and fake documents with the intention to cheat and defraud the complainant bank. 10. That since the very beginning the respondents with the intention of cheating initially submitted forged and fake documents and obtained a KCC Loan from the complainant bank. It is necessary to submit here that NEC- Cum Search Report is required to be obtained before sanctioning of KCC Loan for ascertain the share of applicant and also for ensuring that charge of no other bank is there on the land. It is necessary to submit here that NEC- Cum Search Report is required to be obtained before sanctioning of KCC Loan for ascertain the share of applicant and also for ensuring that charge of no other bank is there on the land. The earing bank official concerned has also not verified the mutation entry from the concerned patwar circle and cross guarantee were taken and related transaction are permitted and hence in connivance of each other the respondents committed fraud to the bank. 11. That the complainant bank issued various notices and also legal notice calling upon the respondents to repay the loan amount but the respondents did not bother to repay the loan amount. The complainant approached the patwari concern for the verification of the mutation entry which was submitted by the respondents. On enquiry it has come in the knowledge of the complainant bank, that the respondents has manufactured forged documents for obtaining the KCC loan and as per the revenue record there is no such rapat/mutation in respect of the loan sanctioned and disbursed by the complainant bank. Moreover, the patwari concerned as well as Sub Registrar-cum-Tehsildar refused their signatures as well as endorsement on the revenue papers. It is necessary to submit here at that very first instance, the complainant bank come to know about that the respondent has cheated him and committed a fraud and also breach of trust by submitting the alleged and forged documents. 12. That the complainant bank filed a complaint before the concerned Police Station against the respondents alleging therein that the respondents has committed fraud and forged the documents for taking over the KCC loans from the complainant bank. The complainant bank has also written a letter to the Tehsildar Theog, for the verification of the charge on the above said land and the Tehsildar Theog, has specifically stated that on enquiry it is found that no such charge was ever entered in the rapat/Rojnamcha of the concerned patwari. 13. That the complainant bank again approached to the police station concerned for lodging of the complaints against the respondents but the concerned police station did not entertain the complaint and verbally informed the complainant that it is a civil dispute pertaining to the loan amount, hence no such criminal complaint can be lodged against the respondents. 13. That the complainant bank again approached to the police station concerned for lodging of the complaints against the respondents but the concerned police station did not entertain the complaint and verbally informed the complainant that it is a civil dispute pertaining to the loan amount, hence no such criminal complaint can be lodged against the respondents. The complainant bank has also lodged complaint before the Superintendent of Police for lodging appropriate FIR against the respondents for committing of offence forgery and fraud. It is necessary to mention here that despite requesting again and again to the Police Station concerned as well as Superintendent of Police they did not bother to lodge a complaint against the respondents, hence the complainant approached before this Hon'ble Court to pass necessary directions to the Police Station concerned to lodge FIR against the respondents. 14. That the complainant bank is a banking company and providing financial assistance to its customers. It is necessary to submit here that a huge public money is involved and the respondents was with the intention to defraud and cheat the bank has manufactured fake revenue papers i.e Jamabandi not only this the respondents appended fake signatures of the Government officials patwari concerned as well as Sub Registrar-cum-Tehsildar Theog and also appended a fake Note on the Jamabandi and entered a fake charge. 15. That the respondents in connivance with each other approached with dishonest intention to borrow the loan amount and cheat the complainant bank by defrauding and manufactured fake documents and appended fake signatures of the Government officials as well as endorsement of lien mark in the revenue papers with the clear intention to cheat the complainant bank. The respondents were having full knowledge and they intentionally defraud and cheated the complainant bank as such the respondents having further knowledge that they are cheating the respondent bank by manufacturing fake and forge documents and also forged signature of the Government officials. Moreover, the respondents were aware that they are doing the illegal act which is against the provisions of law. The respondents intentionally, knowingly committed the aforesaid illegal and unlawful act to disentitle the complainant bank for the realization of the loan amount and thereby the acts of respondents resulting a wrongful loss to the complainant. Moreover, the respondents were aware that they are doing the illegal act which is against the provisions of law. The respondents intentionally, knowingly committed the aforesaid illegal and unlawful act to disentitle the complainant bank for the realization of the loan amount and thereby the acts of respondents resulting a wrongful loss to the complainant. The respondents committed breach of trust by forging the revenue papers and hence the respondents have committed the offence punishable under various provisions of Indian Penal Code as mentioned in para supra. 16. That the cause of action arose in favour of the complainant bank when the complainant bank come to know about the alleged forged mutation entry in the revenue record and when the complainant bank approached to the patwari concern and obtained the latest jamabandi of the land. The cause of action is still continuing as the complainant bank approached to the concerned police station for lodging the appropriate FIR against the respondents and then on when the concerned police Station refused to take any action against the respondents. The cause of action is still continuing in favour of the complainant bank and against the respondents. 17. That the offences have been committed within the territorial jurisdiction of this Learned Court as the branch office of the complainant bank is located and situated at Khalini, Shimla and entire loan documentation has been taken place in the branch office at Khalini. The respondents are also having their respective bank account in the branch office at Khalini, Shimla and the loan amount was also disbursed and sanctioned to the respondents at Khalini Shimla. 18. That the above detailed acts committed by the respondents are totally illegal and unlawful and contrary to the provisions of the law which establishes criminal liability against the respondents and they deserves to be prosecuted under Section 406, 417, 420, 267, 120-B and Section 34 of Indian Penal Code. 18. That the above detailed acts committed by the respondents are totally illegal and unlawful and contrary to the provisions of the law which establishes criminal liability against the respondents and they deserves to be prosecuted under Section 406, 417, 420, 267, 120-B and Section 34 of Indian Penal Code. It is, therefore, respectfully prayed that the keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case as explained herein above the complaint may kindly be allowed and the respondents may kindly be prosecuted for the offences under Section 406, 417, 420, 267, 120-B and 34 of Indian Penal Code in the interest of justice and fair play in alternative the concerned police station may kindly be directed to lodge appropriate FIR against the respondents Any other appropriate order which this Learned Court may deem fit and proper may also be passed in favour of complainant bank against the respondents. 9. On the basis of above facts, police registered the case and thereafter, the criminal machinery swung into motion. 10. During investigation, on 15.07.2024, a request had been made to H.P. Gramin Bank, Branch Khalini, Shimla for procuring the original record. On 30.07.2024, Surinder Kumar, Branch Manager, H.P. Gramin Bank, Branch Khalini, Shimla, appeared before the police and produced the documents, submitted by applicant-Joginder Singh, which include declaration, under Section 6(1), certificate, one copy of certificate, one copy of khasra girdawari and jamabandi, which were taken into possession by the police. Statement of Branch Manager Surender Kumar was also got recorded. 11. During investigation, it was found that in the report of Village Revenue Officer, Patwar Circle Sandhu, Tehsil Theog, the report, regarding the mortgage, has not been entered in the record. The certificate, which was issued on 14.03.2017, was not as per the revenue record. Similarly, the documents i.e. khasra girdawari, copy of rojnamcha and receipt book, have not been entered in the relevant record, maintained by the Patwari. 12. It is the case of the police that as per the report, forged entries, which were found in the revenue record, were made by Joginder Singh (applicant) to obtain loan. 13. In nutshell, it is the case of the police that on 17.03.2017, Joginder Singh (applicant) has obtained the loan, under the Kisan Credit Card, from Himachal Pradesh Gramin Bank, Branch Khalini, Shimla. He has preparedthe forged documents and obtained the loan of Rs. 8 lacs. 13. In nutshell, it is the case of the police that on 17.03.2017, Joginder Singh (applicant) has obtained the loan, under the Kisan Credit Card, from Himachal Pradesh Gramin Bank, Branch Khalini, Shimla. He has preparedthe forged documents and obtained the loan of Rs. 8 lacs. When, the Bank had started the recovery proceedings, then, it was found that in the revenue record, no charge has been created over the land, owned by Joginder Singh (applicant). The documents, which have been produced by the applicant, were found to be forged. 14. After perusing the said status report, vide order dated 18.12.2024, interim protection was granted to the applicant, by this Court, directing the IO to release the applicant, on bail, in the event of his arrest and the applicant had been directed to join the investigation, as and when, directed to do so by the IO. 15. In the status report, which has been filed on 23.12.2024, it has been mentioned that on 19.12.2024, the applicant has joined the investigation and during investigation, he has disclosed that he had applied for Kisan Credit Card Loan and the documents for the same have been got prepared by his elder brother Prem Singh and he has only signed the documents. Said Prem Singh has allegedly made the reports, over the revenue record and submitted the same to the Bank, upon which, loan of Rs.7,90,000/- was sanctioned, in his favour. 16. It is the further case of the police that the applicant has also disclosed that after sanctioning theloan, he has paid Rs. 2,50,000/- in two installements, to his brother Prem Singh, through cheques. The applicant, after sanctioning of the loan amount, has not made any installment and has closed his bank account. On 20.12.2024, Joginder Singh (applicant) had been produced before the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate First Class-4, Shimla for obtaining his specimen signatures. 17. In the status report, which was filed on 27.12.2024, as per the direction of this Court, it has been mentioned in the status report that when, the original search report regarding the said loan was obtained, then, it has been mentioned by the Bank that “It is hereby informed that the Search report is not available in the loan file”. 18. 18. From the bare perusal of the status reports, which have been filed by the police, in this case, one thing is clear that Joginder Singh (applicant) had applied for Kisan Credit Card Loan and the documents were submitted by him, through his brother Prem Singh, and both of them, in connivance with each other, had made false reports of Patwari and Tehsildar over the documentsand in lieu of that, a sum of Rs. 2,50,000/- was paid to said Prem Singh, after the loan was sanctioned in favour of the applicant. 19. Considering the stand that there was no search report available on the file, this Court is of the view that the role, allegedly played by Joginder Singh (applicant), in the alleged crime, will be proved during the trial and dismissing the bail application would be nothing, but, a pre-trial punishment, which is prohibited under the law. 20. In view of the fact that the papers for sanction of the loan amount were got prepared by his brother PremSingh, in lieu of which, he has received Rs. 2,50,000/- from the applicant, this Court is of the view that the applicant is able to make out a case to confirm the interim protection, granted to him, by this Court, on 18.12.2024. 21. Moreover, at the time of deciding the bail application, detailed discussion about merits and demerits of the case should be avoided, as, it would cause prejudice to the case of the prosecution, as well as, to the case of the accused (applicant). 22. Considering all these facts, this Court is of the opinion that the interim order, dated 18.12.2024, is liable to be confirmed. 22. Considering all these facts, this Court is of the opinion that the interim order, dated 18.12.2024, is liable to be confirmed. Consequently, interim order, dated 18.12.2024, is made absolute, subject to the following conditions: a) That the applicant will join the investigation of the case, as and when, called for, by the Investigating Officer, in accordance with law; b) That the applicant will not leave India, without prior permission of the Court; c) That the applicant will not directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat or promise to any person, acquainted with the facts of the case, so as to dissuade him/her from disclosing such facts to the Investigating Officer or the Court; and d) That the applicant shall regularly attend the trial Court on each and every date of hearing and if prevented by any reason to do so seek exemption from appearance by filing appropriate application; 23. Any of the observations, made hereinabove, shall not be taken as an expression of opinion, on the merits of the case, as these observations, are confined, only, to the disposal of the present bail application. 24. The applicant is directed to move regular bail application, when chargesheet will be filed in the competent Court of law. 25. It is made clear that the respondent-State is at liberty to move an appropriate application, in case, any of the bail conditions, is found violated by the applicant.