SHAMBU GURALINGAPPA KAKKALMELI S/O. GURALINGAPPA NINGAPPA KAKKALMELI Vs. THE STATE BANK OF INDIA KITTUR CHANNAMMA MARKET, BIJAPUR, BY ITS CHIEF MANAGER AND THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER is accused in C.C. No. 755/2005 pending on the file of JMFC -I Court, Bijapur for the offences punishable under Sections 467, 468, 478 and 420 of IPC. The respondent No. 2 lodged the complaint before Gandhi Chowk Police Station, Bijapur on 20.07.1998 with an allegation that M/s. Kailash Oil Extractors obtained Rs. 9,00,000/ - loan from respondent No. 1 -Bank; while obtaining the loan, the petitioner herein stood as guarantor; the petitioner mortgaged three properties and all the three properties were taken as security for the loan amount and the amount was released in favour of the borrower (M/s. Kailash Oil Extractors) on 04.03.1994. Subsequently on verification it was found that one of the three properties namely a house bearing Plot No. 1262/1 measuring 30/40 feet does not stand in the name of the petitioner, whereas other two properties were standing in the name of the petitioner. Thus, having found that the petitioner cheated the bank, complaint came to be lodged on 20.07.1998 against the petitioner. The PSI after investigation, laid 'B' report on 02.03.2002 before the jurisdictional Court. The complainant filed protest petition, ultimately the process is issued by the impugned order against the petitioner. The proceedings are going on before the Court below. In the meanwhile, the first respondent -bank has compromised the matter with the borrower namely M/s. Kailash Oil Extractors Limited by settling their dues in full with the Bank by remitting Rs. 13.50 lakhs on 11.02.2006. Since the matter is compromised, this petition is filed by the petitioner being the guarantor for quashing the proceedings.

(2.) IN the normal course, this Court would not have intervened in such matters inasmuch as the petitioner will have to face trial as he has cheated the bank. But the proceedings are pending since 1998 i.e. since 15 years, the matter is being continued and it is still in preliminary stage. Moreover, Sri. Ravindra Reddy, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner is justified in relying upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Nikhil Merchant Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and Another, JT (2008) 9 SC 192 wherein it is observed thus: