NIKHIL CHAUDHARY Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. Sharad Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Sangharsh Pandey, learned Government Advocate and Mr. Y. C. Sharma, learned Senior counsel with Mr. Hariom Rai, learned counsel for the respondent No.2.

(2.) The petitioner has preferred the instant petition under Sec. 482 of Cr.P.C. for quashing the FIR No.507/2018 dtd. 22/7/2018 registered against him at Police Station Civil Lines, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Ss. 420, 467, 468, 471 & 120 (B) of IPC.

(3.) Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner is presently working as Deputy General Manager in Punjab National Bank (PNB). In the year 2014, one M/s Sharma Vin Trade Services Private Limited approached the PNB for credit facility for its business purposes. The PNB acceded to request of the Borrower and issued a sanction letter dtd. 5/5/2014 providing credit facility of Rs.1,000.00 Lakhs as Cash Credit (Hypothecation) facility. Accordingly after due formality and execution of security and other related documents an account bearing No.0399008700137373 was opened with the petitioner in the name of M/s Sharma Vin Trade Services Private Limited. The company namely M/s Subhash Vin Trade Private Limited stood as guarantors of the above credit facility granted by the petitioner, who was posted as Assistant General Manager with the Motibagh Branch of PNB. INDIA at the relevant point of time. M/s Subhash Vin Trade Private Limited also submitted collateral security of the credit facility provided to the Borrower by creating equitable mortgage of property bearing Khasra Nos.439/3 area 0.115 hectare and Khasra No 439/6 area 0.202 hectare, total area 0.317 hectare, situated at Patwari Halka No.113 proposed P.H. No.44, Village Purena, R.I.C. Raipur-2, Tahsil and District Raipur within limit of Municipal Corporation Raipur Ward No.46, Dr. Rajendra Prasad Shukla Ward, Raipur (CG.) (for short mortgaged property). From perusal of this document it is evident that the M/s Subhash Vin Trade Private Limited voluntarily created mortgage as collateral security of the credit facility granted/provided to Borrower. The sale deed of the mortgaged property was executed on 25/9/2013 and the stamp was purchased by the respondent no.2/complainant. The Borrower also executed security documents with regard to the credit facility provided to it. The Borrower failed to adhere to the repayment of the credit facility granted/provided hence its account became Non Performing Assets as per the prevailing law and guidelines of Reserve Bank India on 31/12/2014. Therefore the PNB took the legal recourse available to it under the provisions of The Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short Act of 2002). In this connection the petitioner issued a demand notice dtd. 6/2/2015 under Sec. 13 (2) of the Act of 2002 to M/s Sharma Vin Trade Services Private Limited (Borrower), its directors, guarantor M/s Subhash Vin Trade Private Limited and demanded the outstanding dues within 60 days. The Borrower failed to comply with the demand notice, hence the PNB took measures under sec. 13 (4) of the Act of 2002. In continuation of the recourse to legal remedy available to the PNB, the PNB sent possession notice dtd. 7/4/2015 and asked the Borrower to deliver possession else possession of the secured assets will be taken on or after 17/4/2015. The copy of the notice was also sent to the directors, guarantor M/s Subhash Vin Trade Private Limited. The PNB made an application under Sec. 14 of the Act of 2002 before the District Magistrate, Raipur for delivery of physical possession of the secured assets (mortgaged property). The District Magistrate allowed the application of the PNB under Sec. 14 of the Act of 2002 on 12/6/2017 and directed to deliver the physical possession of the secured assets (mortgaged property). The PNB vide its letter dtd. 30/8/2017 requested the Tahsildar, Raipur to deliver the physical possession of the secured assets (mortgaged property) to the PNB. In compliance of the order dtd. 12/6/2017, the Additional Tahsildar, Raipur vide its order/letter dtd. 10/11/2017 directed the Maal jamadar, Tahsil Office, Raipur to deliver the physical possession of the secured assets (mortgaged property) and submit the report. However, physical possession of the secured assets (mortgaged property) has not been delivered to PNB till date. The PNB has mortgaged the property as collateral security after due verification of its title and for this purpose obtained a title investigation report. The sale deed executed by the respondent no.2/complainant passes the title in favour of M/s Subhash Vin Trade Private Limited. Being aggrieved by the action of the petitioner taken under Sec. 13 (4) of the Act of 2002, the respondent no.2/complainant had filed a Writ petition (C) No.345/2017 before this Court. The said writ petition was withdrawn by the petitioner with liberty to move an application under Sec. 17 of the Act of 2002 before jurisdictional DRT on 15/2/2017. This goes to show that the respondent No.2/complainant was aware of the fact that the PNB is taking legal recourse with regard to the secured assets (mortgaged property), which was sold by him to M/s Subhash Vin Trade Private Limited and which is mortgaged with the PNB. The respondent no.2/complainant filed a Civil Suit with prayer that the execution and registration of the sale deed dtd. 25/9/2013 is illegal and void and the respondent no.2/complainant is the title and possession holder of the suit property. The said civil suit was filed in the year 2016 and since then ?? prior to it respondent no.2/complainant was aware with regard to the fact that the property sold by him is mortgaged with the PNB. The PNB has also filed a complaint before the Police Station Gole Bazaar, Raipur against the borrower and its directors. When police did not do anything, the petitioner filed an application under Sec. 156 (3) of Cr.P.C., 1973 before the JMFC, Raipur. In order to avoid legal proceeding to save the mortgaged property from repayment of credit facility, the respondent no.2/complainant has filed the impugned FIR against the petitioner, against which the present petition has been filed by the petitioner.