This writ petition has been filed seeking intervention of this Court to give direction to the second respondent to conduct investigation in respect of irregularity committed by the bank in sanctioning loan under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 2. It is alleged in the petition that the petitioner is a customer of Catholic Syrian Bank, Kannur branch. There were serious allegations of forgery, cheating and misappropriation against the officers of the bank in the year 2011. The Senior Manager had lodged Ext.P1 complaint to Kannur Town Police and investigation in the case is going on. The petitioner also filed a complaint against the officers of the Catholic Syrian Bank, Kannur branch as Ext.P2 and it was referred to the police. Ext.P1 First Information Report is still under investigation. But police has not properly conducted any investigation. The petitioner has no faith in the investigation that is being conducted by the local police. So the investigation in Crime No.788/2011 of Kannur town police station has to be entrusted to the special team of Crime Branch. The petitioner has no other remedy except to approach this Court seeking the following reliefs:
a. That this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or writ in the nature of Mandamus or such other writ or direction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India directing investigation by a special team of Crime Branch of Police, Kerala State in Crime No.788/2011 of Kannur Town Police Station.
b. For cost and compensation of the petition.
c. For such other and further writs or orders as the nature and circumstances of the case may require.
3. Originally there were only two respondents and later supplemental third respondent, Catholic Syrian Bank Kannur branch, was also impleaded. The second respondent filed a detailed counter stating that the police had conducted proper investigation in Crime No.788/2011 of Kannur police station and after investigation he has submitted final report on 30.5.2013 to treat the case as further action dropped. The bank has filed a private complaint before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Kannur and that is pending. If the petitioner is aggrieved by the action of the police, he can file a private complaint. Further, the investigation has not revealed any higher official level conspiracy in this case and bank is a scheduled bank and allegations raised by the petitioner are totally baseless and false. So, according to the 2nd respondent, no further investigation is required in respect of Ext.P2 filed by the petitioner.
4. The third respondent also filed a statement stating that higher officials in the bank are not responsible for the day to day administration of the local branch and the petitioner was not made an accused in the complaint filed by them. The Manager and other officials, who were working in the bank at that time, were responsible for committing irregularities in sanctioning the loan. The Bank has already filed a complaint against the then Manger and also against the borrowers and a crime was registered and after investigation, it was referred by the police. Thereafter they filed a private complaint against the then Manager of the Kannur branch and six borrowers, who colluded with this bank officials and obtained money in collusion with them. The petitioner is a guarantor of one of the loan transaction and he has not been made a party in that case. His attempt is only to avoid payment to the bank in the proceedings that is likely to be initiated for non realization of the amount that such a complaint has been now filed. The Higher officials of the bank are not responsible for the irregularities committed in the branch. So they prayed for dismissal of the application.
5. On going through the allegations in the complaint and also the statement filed by the second respondent and the third respondent, it is seen that during the relevant period, they were certain irregularities found in grating loan to some borrowers and according to the bank, it was done in collusion with the borrowers by the then Manager and misappropriated the amount and so a complaint has been filed by the bank against the then Manager, who was responsible for the same and six borrowers, who were also party to that fraud and collusion and the police after investigation filed a refer report and aggrieved by the same bank filed a protest complaint and that is pending before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Kannur. The grievance of the petitioner was that respondents shown in EX.P2 were also responsible for the irregularities which resulted in loss to the bank, that has to be investigated by the higher police agency. On the basis of the statement filed by the second respondent, it is seen that the persons mentioned in Ext.P2 were not directly involved in the irregularities and according to him, it is a civil dispute and so no police action is required.
If the petitioner is aggrieved by the same, his remedy is to file a private complaint against those persons whom he feel responsible for the commission of the offence before the Magistrate court and seek his remedy before that court. So no further action is required in this petition and the petition is disposed of with liberty for the petitioner to file appropriate complaint before the concerned Magistrate court under Sections 190 and 200 of the Code and seek his remedy in accordance with law.
Sd/-
K. RAMAKRISHNAN, JUDGE.
cl /true copy/ P.S to Judge