INDERPAL THUKRAL Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a Petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.) preferred by the Petitioners for quashing of FIR No.362/2005, under Section 420/406/120-B/34 IPC, Police Station Ambedkar Nagar and consequential proceedings arising out of the same.

(2.) FIR No.362/2005 was recorded in Police Station Ambedkar Nagar with the allegations that the Petitioners along with one Smt. Nirmala Thukral (since expired) approached Citifinancial Consumer Finance (India) Ltd. for grant of loan of Rs. 33 lakhs. The said loan having been granted to the Petitioners was repayable in certain instalments as mentioned in the FIR. Subsequently, it came to the notice of Citifinancial Consumer Finance (India) Ltd. that the property which was mortgaged by the Petitioner as collateral security was already mortgaged with the Indian Bank, Chandni Chowk branch, Delhi. The Petitioners defaulted in payment of the instalments. At this stage, the Respondent No.2 came to know that the Petitioners in collusion with Smt. Seema Thukral had cheated Citifinancial Consumer Finance (India) Ltd. Thus, apart from getting a criminal case registered, Citifinancial Consumer Finance (India) Ltd. also initiated arbitration proceedings. In the execution petition Ex.P. No.210/2005 vide a deed of settlement dated 31.05.2006, the Citifinancial Consumer Finance (India) Ltd. assigned the loan amount and all the rights and obligations with regard to the loan in favour of the Respondent No.2 (Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd.) including the pending litigation. In Ex.P.210/2005, the dispute between the Petitioners and Citifinancial Consumer Finance (India) Ltd. was settled. By virtue of the settlement, a sum of Rs. 8 lakhs was payable by the Petitioners in full and final settlement of the claim of Citifinancial Consumer Finance (India) Ltd. A sum of Rs. 2.5 lakhs was paid at the time of the settlement. Rest of the amount was payable in 12 equal monthly instalments beginning from 01.01.2011. It is admitted by the learned counsel for the Respondent No.2 that all 12 instalments stand paid. An affidavit to this effect is also placed on record by the Respondent No.2.

(3.) The learned APP has pointed out that there was an earlier loan transaction between the Petitioner No.1 and Indian Bank and that the Indian Bank is yet to recover a sum of Rs. 40 lakhs from the Petitioner No.1. A letter from Indian Bank has also been presented to show that no settlement has been reached by Petitioner No.1/ M/s. Thukral Enterprises with Indian Bank.