High Court
Legal Reasoning
5Cri.Appln_1119_2023the criminal proceedings. 4.3He also relies on the decision in Abhay Shantilal Jain and othersvs. The State of Maharashtra and another with companion matter decided bythis Court in Criminal Application No.4744 of 2016 on 27.03.2017, which ison the similar line regarding exercise of powers under Section 482 of theCode of Criminal Procedure. 5Learned APP relies on the decision in State of Karnataka vs. M.Devendrappa and another [AIR 2002 SC 671], wherein it is held thatmeticulous analysis of the case before trial to find out whether the casewould end in conviction or acquittal is not necessary while considering anapplication under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 6The fact which is not in dispute is that applicant had taken goldloan of Rs.2,00,000/- on 11.02.2022 from Maharashtra Gramin Bank, BranchSangamner. It will have to be presumed that at the time of submittingapplication for grant of loan applicant would have exhausted the requiredprocedure. Along with his application he had filed certificate of goldsmith,with whom the said bank had contract. Upon the certificate issued by saidgoldsmith that the property which would be pledged is gold article, then onlythe bank would have released the loan amount. From 11.02.2022 till 6Cri.Appln_1119_202318.01.2023 there was no occasion for the bank to get the said article/srevaluated. The report, copy of which has been produced by respondentNo.2, does not reveal as to which tests were conducted to check whether thearticle is gold article or not, but it is stated in the report that for 33 accountsthe article/ornaments those were given are fake. Of course, the saidgoldsmith, who had issued the said certificate has been made as an accusedin this case. Now, the fact remains is that in the present case applicant hasrepaid loan on 19.01.2023. It is not the case of respondent No.2 that presentapplicant got knowledge about report from some source and, therefore, inorder to get rid of, he had deposited the said amount. Further, when on18.01.2023 the concerned bank had the knowledge that the article whichwas pledged by applicant was fake, then why the bank had allowed him todeposit the amount and even if he has been allowed, why the bank shouldreturn the said article to the applicant, is a question ? In a sense, themuddemal itself has been returned by informant to accused. Now, except thesaid report, which does not say as to which test was conducted to revaluatethe article, there is nothing. The ratio laid down in the decision relied bylearned APP as well as learned Advocate for respondent No.2 cannot bedenied at all, however, with its own acts the bank that is through its Manager– respondent No.2 has destroyed the evidence by giving it back to theapplicant by stating that the loan has been mitigated. Under such 7Cri.Appln_1119_2023circumstance, it would be unjust to ask the applicant to face the trial. Wetake this to be a fit case where the First Information Report needs to bequashed and set aside. Hence, following order. ORDERi)Criminal Application stands allowed. ii)First Information Report vide Crime No.113/2023 dated05.02.2023 registered with Sangamner City Police Station, Tq. Sangamner,Dist. Ahmednagar, for the offence punishable under Sections 406, 408, 420 ofthe Indian Penal Code, 1860 stands quashed and set aside as againstapplicant Nanasaheb Bhagwat Raut. ( ROHIT W. JOSHI, J. )( SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI, J. )agd
Arguments
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYBENCH AT AURANGABADCRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.1119 OF 2023Nanasaheb Bhagwat Raut,Age 51 yrs., Occ. Agri.,R/o Ghulewadi, Tq. Sangamner,Dist. Ahmednagar. … Applicant… Versus …1The State of MaharashtraThrough Police Inspector,Sangamner City Police Station, Tq. Sangamner, Dist. Ahmednagar. 2Nandkishor Namdeo Mhaske,Age 40 yrs., Occ. Service,R/o Abhinavnagar, Near Malpani Office,Tq. Sangamner, Dist. Ahmednagar. … Respondents...Mr. S.S. Dixit, Advocate for applicantMr. G.A. Kulkarni, APP for respondent No.1Mr. P.P. Shahane, Advocate for respondent No.2...CORAM :SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI &ROHIT W. JOSHI, JJ.RESERVED ON :13rd JANUARY, 2025PRONOUNCED ON :10th FEBRUARY, 2025 2Cri.Appln_1119_2023ORDER :( PER : SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI, J. )1Present application has been filed for quashment of FirstInformation Report vide Crime No.113/2023 dated 05.02.2023 registeredwith Sangamner City Police Station, Tq. Sangamner, Dist. Ahmednagar, forthe offence punishable under Section 406, 408, 420 of the Indian Penal Code,1860. 2Heard learned Advocate Mr. S.S. Dixit for applicant, learned APPMr. G.A. Kulkarni for respondent No.1 and learned Advocate Mr. P.P. Shahanefor respondent No.2. 3Learned Advocate for applicant submits that applicant has beenmade as accused No.13. Respondent No.2 is Manager of MaharashtraGramin Bank, Branch Sangamner. It is stated that the bank had given goldloan to about 137 persons between 30.07.2020 to 13.01.2023. On18.01.2023 they had appointed Panel of three persons for revaluation of goldtaken in gold loan matter. At that time it was found that in 33 accounts theornaments those have been given are fake, that is, not gold articles. Presentapplicant had taken gold loan of Rs.2,00,000/- on 11.02.2022 and in fact, hehas repaid the said loan on 19.01.2023. He had deposited amount of 3Cri.Appln_1119_2023Rs.2,14,000/- on that day. Thereupon, the bank had issued certificate thatloan is mitigated and articles which were pledged have been returned. Underthe said circumstance, on the date of First Information Report i.e. 05.02.2023there was no transaction remaining or gold loan account was not inoperation. Under such circumstance, it would be unjust to ask the applicantto face the trial. 4Respondent No.2 has filed affidavit-in-reply reiterating the samecontents those are in First Information Report and has also produced onrecord the gold audit and revaluation report dated 18.01.2023 and thecomplaint that was made on 24.01.2023 to the Superintendent of Police. It issubmitted on their behalf that merely because now the loan amount has beenmitigated, that does not mean that no action can be taken against applicant.When he had taken the loan, at that time, he had given fake ornaments andthis was in conspiracy with goldsmith on the panel of bank, who had certifiedthat it was gold. Now, the said goldsmith, who had given such fakecertificate i.e. proprietor Mr. Jagdish Shahane of Rajmani Jewellers had alsobeen made as an accused. The bank was required to extend amount ofRs.68,94,000/- based upon certificates issued by said goldsmith, when he hadthe knowledge that ornaments which were given as security as such are fake.Learned Advocate appearing for respondent No.2 relies on the decision in 4Cri.Appln_1119_2023State of Odisha vs. Pratima Mohanty etc. [AIR 2022 SC 41], wherein it isheld that the date for the offence under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Codewould be the date when the cause of action arose. High Court is not requiredto enter into merits of the allegations and conduct a mini trial by weighingevidence in detail at the time of considering application under Section 482 ofthe Code of Criminal Procedure. 4.1He further relies on the decision in Central Bureau ofInvestigation vs. Jagjit Singh [2013 AIR SCW 5719], wherein it has been heldthat accused with the aid of bank officers alleged to have secured loan onforged documents. In such case bank alone is not victim. Repayment of dueswas not done by accused because of settlement between him and bank but itwas as per the order of DRT and, therefore, quashing of proceedings on theground of after settlement continuation of proceedings would not serve thepurpose was not justified. 4.2Further reliance has been placed on the decision in State ofMaharashtra Through CBI vs. Vikram Anantrai Doshi and others [2014 AIRSCW 5567], wherein it is observed that defrauding of a bank is a socialwrong and has immense societal impact. Merely because accused had repaidmoney and bank has issued no dues certificate is not sufficient for quashing