Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh v. 1 - B. Rama Mani W/o
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:5006 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 1905 of 2018 Neeraj Verma S/o Late Shri Rajendra Prasad Verma Aged About 42 Years Occupation Properitor, M/s Shri Sai Baba Engineering Consern, R/o Near L. I. C. Office Mahamaya Road Ambikapur, District Surguja Chhattisgarh, District : Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner versus 1 - B. Rama Mani W/o Shri B. Kanak Raju Aged About 51 Years Regional Manager State Bank Of India Regional Business Office Ambikapur, Region Iv, Ambikapur District Surguja Chhattisgarh, District : Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh 2 - Manish Kumar Sinha S/o Vijay Kumar Sinha State Bank Of India, Collectorate Branch Ambikapur District Surguja Chhattisgarh, District : Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh ---- Respondents For Petitioner For Respondents : : Mr. Shakti Raj Sinha, Advocate. Mr. Harshal Chouhan, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 28.01.2025 Order on Board RAHUL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by RAHUL DEWANGAN Date: 2025.01.29 14:31:50 +0530 1.
Legal Reasoning
Heard Mr. Shakti Raj Sinha, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. Harshal Chouhan, Learned counsel appearing for the respondents. 2. The petitioner has filed the instant petition under Section 482 of CrPC for being aggrieved by the written statement filed in WP(C) No. 2111/02016 and WP(C) No. 134/2018, pending before this court in which the respondents have sworn self-contradictory false 2 affidavits, mentioning incorrect facts in the written statement and have tried to harm the petitioner and have also mislead this Court. 3. The prosecution story, in short, is that at the very outset the petitioner undertakes that none of the properties mortgaged with the State Bank of India Collectorate Branch Ambikapur District Surguja (C.G) is subject matter of Mortgage in any other Bank in India. A writ petition W.P. (C) No 2111/2016 was filed by the petitioner against the illegal malafide and arbitrary action on the part of the State Bank whereby the Bank after sanctioning the loan of the petitioner have created a default in the documents of petitioner and have withheld the disbursement of loan amount, which is pending before this Court for its kind consideration and in which the reply on behalf of the respondent Bank has also being filed and thereafter the petitioner also filed an rejoinder to the reply filed by the respondent. 4. Another writ petition W.P. (C) No. 134/2018 was filed by the petitioner against the illegal malafide and arbitrary action on the part of the State Bank whereby the Bank Guarantee/title deed which was already released by the bank in favour of the petitioner was withheld by the respondent bank, which is pending before this Court for its kind consideration and in which the reply on behalf of the respondent Bank has also being filed. 5. After going to the reply filed by the respondents in both the above writ petitions it has come to knowledge of petitioner that the Bank 3 authorities have tried to mislead this Court stating in their written that original title deed of Khasra No. 2366/5, 2373/9, 2373/3 was obtained by the Bank from the bank from the petitioner while creating Mortgage in the year 2012 and they have inadvertently handed over the above original title deed to the petitioner. This above statement made by the respondents in their affidavits is false on the face of their own record because it is nowhere mentioned in the EM register and also in the EM confirmation letter that this Particular original title deed pertaining to Khasra No. 2366/5, 2373/9, 2373/3 was ever deposited with the respondents or the bank. Further more there is not a single document filed by the respondents in both the writ petitions through which they can demonstrate that the above original title deed pertaining to Khasra No. 2366/5, 2373/9, 2373/3 was ever submitted with the respondents or the Bank. 6. There is a procedure prescribed for the bank authorities to follow while creating an equitable mortgage in which the title deed which are subject matter of the mortgage is deposited in the Bank and the entries are made in the EM register to this effect, furthermore when the original title deed is to be returned to the party again there is a procedure to take the receipt of the same in a form prescribed termed as COS-49. This fact is also evident from the
Decision
annexures filed along with the reply and the writ petition which shows that no entry regarding the deposition of above said original title deed is there in any document. It shows the malice on 4 the part of the respondents while filling written and swearing the affidavits to this effect that the original title deed was deposited with them. True facts are that neither the respondents have taken the original title deed pertaining to Khasra No. 2366/5, 2373/9, 2373/3 nor the same has been returned back inadvertently to the petitioner by the respondents even by mistake. On the other hand the respondents have also misguided the petitioner by taking signatures over several papers including the F.I.R while they agreed to create equitable mortgage on certified copy of the original title deed showing requirement of the same in the circular dated 17.12.2009. 7. In the above manner the facts stated by the respondents in their affidavits is contradictory to their own records filed in the annexures in there written statement in which no further evidence is required for determination of the fact that the original title deed pertaining to Khasra No 2366/5, 2373/9, 2373/3 was never taken by the respondents hence there is no question of returning the same to the petitioner inadvertently or even by mistake by the respondent bank. Thus, pleading of false facts in return supported with affidavits is offensive and is actionable under section 340 read with Seciton 195 of Cr.P.C. At least the respondents should not have taken false plea to succeed in the matter pending before this Curt. Hence, this petition. 8. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the 5 respondents in both the above writ petitions have filed a false affidavit and it has come to knowledge of petitioner that the Bank authorities have tried to mislead this Court stating in their written that original title deed of Khasra No. 2366/5, 2373/9, 2373/3 was obtained by the Bank from the bank from the petitioner while creating Mortgage in the year 2012 and they have inadvertently handed over the above original title deed to the petitioner. There is a procedure prescribed for the bank authorities to follow while creating an equitable mortgage in which the title deed which are subject matter of the mortgage is deposited in the Bank and the entries are made in the EM register to this effect, furthermore when the original title deed is to be returned to the party again there is a procedure to take the receipt of the same in a form prescribed termed as COS-49. True facts are that neither the respondents have taken the original title deed pertaining to Khasra No. 2366/5, 2373/9, 2373/3 nor the same has been returned back inadvertently to the petitioner by the respondents even by mistake. In the above manner the facts stated by the respondents in their affidavits is contradictory to their own records filed in the annexures in there written statement in which no further evidence is required for determination of the fact that the original title deed pertaining to Khasra No 2366/5, 2373/9, 2373/3 was never taken by the respondents hence there is no question of returning the same to the petitioner inadvertently or even by mistake by the respondent bank. Thus, pleading of false facts in 6 return supported with affidavits is offensive and is actionable under Section 340 read with 195 of Cr.P.C. At least the respondents should not have taken false plea to succeed in the matter pending before this Court. 9. Learned counsel appearing for the private respondents opposes the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner and submits that Section 340 of Cr.P.C. deals with procedure in cases mentioned in Section 195. It requires that if the Court is of the opinion that an enquiry should be made into an offence referred in clause (b) of Sub Section (1) of Section 195 which have been committed, such court after preliminary enquiry record a finding, make a complaint and same would be sent to J.M.F.C. having territorial jurisdiction. The basic ingredient for invocation of 340 Cr.P.C. is opinion of the court that an offence enumerated in clause (b) of sub section (1) of Sec. 195 Cr.P.C. has been committed, thereafter the court has to record a finding. In the present case no such opinion has been framed by any Court, nor any finding has been recorded thus section 340 Cr.P.C. has no application in the present case. It is further submitted that the petitioner has filed the present petition with an ill motive as due to the aforementioned conduct of the petitioner, the Bank had refused to sanction loan to the petitioner and just to exaggerate the pressure on the Bank the petitioner had impleaded the authorities to create terror and pressure on the bank authorities. At this juncture it would be relevant to mention that the loans 7 advanced by the Bank to M/s J.K.Earthmovers and M/s Sai Baba Engineering were become NPA and the petitioner by filing various litigations was denying to repay the loan therefore State Bank of India had already filed original application against both these firms for recovery of their outstanding dues before Debt Recovery Tribunal, Jabalpur, therefore, the instant petition is devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed. 10. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials available on record. 11. Considering the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, and from the perusal of the judgments/orders of the trial Court as well as the revisional Court, it transpires that no good ground has been raised by the counsel for the petitioner in the present case showing the importance of the present petition to draw proceedings enumerated under Section 195 of CrPC against the respondent. 12. Accordingly, the instant petitioner under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is devoid of merits, liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 13. A copy of this order be sent to the concerned trial Court for necessary compliance and follow up action, if any. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Rahul