NILESH JAGANNATH KHADE Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition is filed by the petitioners/accused Nos.2, 4 to 8 and accused No.10, under article 226 and 227 of Constitution of India, read with Sec. 482 of Cr.P.C., for quashing the charge sheet in C.C.No.242/2021 dtd. 23/9/2021 on the file of I Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mysuru, in pursuance of the FIR in Crime No.80/2016 registered by the Mandi police, Mysuru city filed on 15/5/2016 and charge sheeted for the offences punishable under Ss. 120B, 420, 409, read with 34 of IPC.

(2.) Heard the arguments of learned counsel for petitioners and learned counsel for respondent No.2 and learned HCGP for respondent No.1/State.

(3.) The case of the respondent No.2 is that in his complaint filed before the police alleging that he had borrowed loan for Rs.15.00 lakhs from the Oriental Bank of Commerce, Kuvempunagar Branch and subsequently it was named as Punjab National Bank and he has executed a Mortgage deed in respect of property bearing No.1874 and 1875. Subsequently, he was in default in repayment of loan and his property was attached by the Banker by invoking Sec. 13 and 14 of Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred as SARFAESI Act ). The respondent also had borrowed loan from Sri Kanyakaparameswari Co-operative Bank Ltd., by pledging some other property and when the said Co- operative banker came to the premises, it was found this Punjab National Bank officials represented by these petitioners have locked the property No.1872 and 1873, which was not at all pledged with this bank. The said property was mortgaged with the Sri Kanyakaparameswari Co-operative Bank Ltd and after repayment of the loan amount when the complainant verified the house property in property No.1872 and 1873, the accused bank officials have taken away the valuable documents, cash and other materials without taking his permission and they wrongly attached some other property, than the property which was pledged with them. Thereby these accused have caused huge loss. Also it is stated that subsequently the petitioners have called the complainant and prepared the document, creating the documents in the name of the respondent and threatening for compromise. Hence, he has filed complaint for taking action against them. The police after registering the FIR, investigated the matter and filed the charge sheet which is under challenge.