1. The present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, has been preferred the petitioner herein – original accused No.3 (as per charge-sheet) to quash and set aside the impugned FIR being C.R.No.I-681 of 2002 registered with Naranpura Police Station, Ahmedabad as well as to quash and set aside the Supplementary Charge-sheet filed against the petitioner being Charge-sheet No.357 of 2003 dated 20/09/2003 in Criminal Case No.1287 of 2003 pending in the Court of learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Court No.9, Ahmedabad and subsequently to quash and set aside the criminal proceedings against the petitioner arising out of the same.
2. It appears that respondent No.2 herein has lodged the FIR being C.R.No.I-681 of 2002 before Naranpura Police Station against the office bearers of Sabarmati Co-Operative Bank Limited and others (in all against 14 accused persons) for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 409, 420, 467, 471, 477-A, 114 and 120(B) of the Indian Penal Code with respect to mismanagement, misappropriation, cheating, forging the documents, etc. It appears that so far as the petitioner is concerned, the main allegation against the petitioner was that office bearers of the Bank advanced Rs.18 Lacs though permissible limit so far as account of Bhagwati Enterprise was only Rs.64,000/-. Therefore, it is alleged that by giving more amount than the limit prescribed, the petitioner has committed an offence of misappropriation. It appears that charge-sheet was filed against the accused persons except the petitioner and subsequently supplementary charge-sheet was filed against the petitioner for the offences as alleged. Hence, being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the supplementary charge-sheet, the petitioner has preferred the present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India r/w. Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
3. Mr.Rajeshwar Dave, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner herein – original accused No.3 (as per charge-sheet) has submitted that the petitioner has not committed any offences as alleged. It is submitted that only allegation against the petitioner in the FIR and even from the charge-sheet papers was that a loan was advanced to the petitioner more than prescribed limit, which was Rs.64,000/- only. It is submitted that whatever amount has been taken by the petitioner as advance is already repaid. Therefore, as such there was no intention of the petitioner to cheat. It is further submitted that there was no material on record even collected during the course of investigation that the petitioner obtained loan/advance by producing forged documents. It is submitted that in the similar set of circumstances, learned Single Judge has quashed and set aside the FIR / charge-sheet against the person/accused having similar allegation more particularly when the entire amount due and payable was repaid. Therefore, it is requested to quash and set aside the impugned FIR/ supplementary charge-sheet filed against the petitioner being Charge Sheet No.357 of 2003 arising out of FIR being C.R.No.I-681/2002 registered with Naranpura Police Station.
4. Mr.L.B.Dabhi, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the respondent-State and Investigating Officer is not a position to point out any material against the petitioner, by which, it can be said that the petitioner has committed the offences as alleged, for which, he is charge- sheeted. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor is not in a position to point out that loan/advance was obtained by the petitioner by forging the documents and by producing forged security.
5. Mr.Udit Mehta, learned advocate appearing on behalf of respondent No.2 herein - original complainant has not disputed that entire amount due and payable has been repaid by the petitioner and has requested to pass an appropriate order in the facts and circumstances of the case.
6. Heard learned advocates appearing on behalf of the respective parties at length and considered the entire charge- sheet papers and averments and allegations made against the petitioner.
It appears that the main and only allegation against the petitioner is that loan/ finance was given to the petitioner beyond prescribed limit. It is alleged that a sum of Rs.18 Lacs was advanced to the petitioner though permissible limit under the account of Bhagwati Enterprise was Rs.64,000/-. Therefore, it is alleged that the petitioner has committed an offence of misappropriation. It is to be noted that considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case and when there are no allegations that the finance was obtained by the petitioner by forging the documents and more particularly when entire amount due and payable by the petitioner, which was financed to the petitioner, has been repaid by the petitioner, to continue the criminal proceedings against the petitioner would be unnecessary harassment to the petitioner and it will be abuse of process of law and Court. When the entire amount of finance/loan has been repaid by the petitioner and when there is no allegation of creating and forging the documents while taking loan/advance, the learned Single Judge has quashed and set aside the charge-sheet arising out of the said FIR.
7. In view of the above and for the reasons stated hereinabove, the petition succeeds and the impugned criminal proceedings against the petitioner inclusive of the supplementary charge-sheet No.357/2003 arising out of FIR being C.R.No.I-681/2002 registered with Naranpura Police Station, Ahmedabad is hereby quashed and set aside. However, the same shall be without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the original complainant as well as prosecution against other accused persons and other accused persons shall be tried by the learned Magistrate/Court in accordance with law and on merits, without in any way being influenced by the present order as the present order is only qua the petitioner. Rule is made absolute accordingly.
[M.R.SHAH,J] *dipti