JEEJA BOSE Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application filed under Section 438 of Cr.P.C seeking anticipatory bail.

(2.) The prosecution case, in brief, is that the de facto complainant was in dire need of money to conduct his sister's marriage. He, therefore, approached the applicants for help and understanding his requirements, the applicants dishonestly induced the defacto complainant to pledge his property before the Canara Bank, Edappally branch and they obtained a loan of Rs.75,00,000/- from the bank. Rs.45,00,000/- was immediately handed over to the de facto complainant for his own utilization, the remaining 30,00,000/-was allegedly utilized by the applicants for the purpose of the company and appropriated it. The arrangement between the defacto complainant and the applicants was that the defacto complainant would be paying Rs.45,000/- to the applicants for the purpose of repayment of the amounts. He has to pay Rs.30,000/. Thus all together a sum of Rs.75,000/- has to be paid towards the repayment of the loan. However, despite having received money from the defacto complainant for repayment of the loan, the applicants misappropriated that amount and never paid any amount towards the repayment of the loan. The bank took appropriate action for defaulting the repayment, the property was preceded against. Since the property belonged to the defacto complainant, he was forced to close the loan by making a total payment of Rs.95,00,000/- to the bank. The defacto complainant realized that he had been cheated by the applicants and that at the very inception of the agreement they had this intention to cheat him.

(3.) The applicants would contend that the company named "Fabtech" which had allegedly helped the de facto complainant to obtain the loan was being conducted not by the applicants together as alleged, but by the 3rd accused alone. It was a firm in which the accused Nos.1 and 2 had nothing to do with. The 3rd accused was acquainted with the de facto complainant and they had arranged for a loan and the amount which was allegedly taken by the company was actually spent for the firm and the partnership deed is produced as Annexure-I, which indicates that the accused 1 and 2 have absolutely no connection with the firm. The de facto complainant is in fact made one of the partners of the firm and that he had mortgaged his property as a partner of the firm and accused 1 and 2 had nothing to do with it. Regarding the repayment of the amount by the de facto complainant, there are absolutely no materials available. It appears to be a breach of the agreement between the de facto complainant and the 3rd accused as evidenced by Annexure-I.