IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF MARCH 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE JOHN MICHAEL CUNHA CRIMINAL PETITION NO.4719 OF 2013 BETWEEN:
SRI MOHAN RAM S/O N.S. KRISHAN AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS R/AT NO.5/1, 2ND FLOOR, 2ND MAIN ROAD, N.R. COLONY, BANGALORE-19 (BY SRI: HANUMANTHARAYA D, ADVOCATE) AND 1. STATE BY CHIKKPETE POLICE STATION BANGALORE REP BY ITS STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BENGALURU-560001.
2. SRI S.R.MAYAKOTHAN AGE MAJOR OCC: BRANCH MANAGER THE KARUR VYSYA BANK LTD., ... PETITIONER #549, AVENUE ROAD BANGALORE-560002 ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI: VIJAYA KUMAR MAJAGE, ADDL. SPP FOR R1; SRI: PRAVEEN HEGDE, ADVOCATE FOR R2-ABSENT) THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS PENDING BEFORE THE C.M.M., BANGALORE IN C.C.NO.9009/2013 AND ALLOW THIS CRL.P.
THIS CRL.P COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
O R D E R Petitioner is accused No.7 in C.C.No.9009/2013. He has sought to quash the above proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned SPP-II appearing for respondent No.1 State.
Learned counsel for respondent No.2 is absent and has not addressed any arguments.
2. The case of the prosecution is that during his tenure as Branch Manager of Karur Vysya Bank, the petitioner herein sanctioned 497 instalment loans/personal loans amounting to Rs.4.75 crores and it turned out that in 129 cases, loans were disbursed by creating false documents by accused Nos.1 to 6.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the only allegation made against the petitioner is that without verifying the loan applications, the petitioner herein sanctioned the loan. Said allegation, even if accepted in its entirety does not constitute the ingredients of offences under sections 420, 419, 120B, 468, 471 r/w 149 Indian Penal Code. Hence the prosecution of the petitioner is illegal and malafide. In support of his submission, learned counsel has placed reliance on a decision of the Supreme Court in VIJAY PANDURANG THAKRE AND OTHERS vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA, reported in (2017) 4 SCC 377.
Further, learned counsel submits that even the witnesses examined by the prosecution have stated that they have personally submitted the loan applications before the Manager and have taken Demand Drafts personally and therefore even the material collected by the Investigating agency suggest that the petitioner herein is not involved in the alleged offences. There are no elements of any illegal agreement between the co- accused so as to constitute offence under section 120B of Indian Penal Code and therefore, the prosecution of the petitioner for the alleged offences is wholly illegal and abuse of process of Court and therefore, is liable to be quashed.
4. Refuting the submissions, learned Addl. SPP for respondent No.1 has drawn my attention to the complaint lodged by the then Manager of Karur Vysya Bank and has emphasized that the role played by the present petitioner is narrated in the complaint, which indicates that right from inception, the petitioner was aware of the involvement of accused Nos.1 to 6 in the disbursement of loan. The material collected by the Investigating agency also indicates that in conspiracy with other accused, a huge amount of public funds was disbursed to fake beneficiaries and therefore, all the ingredients of offences alleged against the petitioner are satisfied and hence, there is no case for quashing of proceedings against the petitioner.
5. Considered the submissions and perused the records.
There is no dispute that the petitioner herein was the Branch Manager of Karur Vysya Bank Limited, Bengaluru at the relevant time. The complaint was lodged by the subsequent Manager of Karur Vysya Bank and in the complaint, it was specifically alleged that all the loan applications duly filled and signed by the applicants for the loan alongwith requisite undertaking letter from the respective Government Departments, were brought to the Bank in person either by Mr.Raghu Kumar-accused No.1 or his associates Sri. Basavarajappa-accused No.2, Sri. Anand Kumar accused No.3, Sri. Jayaraman-accused No.4 and Sri. Sanjeeva Murthy-accused No.5 and handed over personally to the then Branch Manager. It is further alleged that a total number of 497 instalment loans/personal loans for a total amount of Rs.4.75 crores were sanctioned by the then Branch Manager. Subsequently, the very same persons namely, H.B. Raghu Kumar, A.K. Basavarajappa, B. Anand Kumar, T.K. Jayaraman and Sri. Sanjeeva Murthy visited the bank and collected from the said branch Manager the Demand Drafts. If these allegations are considered in the light of the material collected by the investigating agency in the course of investigation, it would indicate that the signatures and handwriting found on the loan applications as well as other documents produced for disbursement of the said amount stood in the handwriting of accused Nos.1 to 6. These materials coupled with the allegations made in the complaint, in my view, clearly make out the offence of Section 120B Indian Penal Code.
6. It is trite law that direct evidence in proof of conspiracy is seldom available. It is only in the course of the trial, the circumstances leading to conspiracy would be unravelled. As the material produced by the investigating agency prima-facie disclose criminal conspiracy on the part of the petitioner, in my view, the proceedings initiated against the petitioner cannot be quashed. I do not find any justifiable ground to quash the proceedings. However, having regard to the contentions urged by the petitioner, liberty is reserved to the petitioner to seek for his discharge on such grounds available under law before the trial court.
With this observation, the petition is dismissed.
Any observations made in this order shall not influence the trial Court while considering the case of the petitioner during trial.
Sd/- JUDGE *mn/-