BRAHMACHARI PRAKASH Vs. A. T. RAGHUNATH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The first respondent, the writ petitioner, had a loan transaction with the Syndicate Bank, Angamaly branch, for Rs.123.00 lakhs. When the loan was declared as NPA, he attempted to sell the secured asset to the appellant to settle the dues. As part of a settlement between the bank and the first respondent, the appellant, a representative of Matha Amrritanandamayi Math, deposited Demand Drafts for Rs.135.00 lakhs in the bank in the name of the 1st respondent's business establishment. Later, the appellant withdrew the Demand Drafts from the bank, claiming that the agreement between the appellant and the first respondent for purchasing the secured asset had not materialised. Later, when the bank brought the secured asset in public auction, the appellant bought it for Rs.165.00 lakhs on behalf of the Math.

(2.) Alleging that the bank officials permitted the appellant to get back the Demand Drafts deposited in the bank in the name of the first respondent as a result of a criminal conspiracy to give undue advantage to the Math and that there was flagrant corruption in permitting the said act which resulted in auctioning the land to the 3rd respondent for a meagre amount, whereas, as per the agreement for sale between them, he would have been liable to pay at least Rs.2.5 crores, the first respondent submitted Ext.P17 complaint to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI). Later, he preferred the writ petition for directing the CBI to register a crime and to continue the investigation as per Ext.P17 complaint.

(3.) The Single Bench of this Court found that permitting the appellant to withdraw the demand drafts was extremely suspicious and unheard of in banking history and accordingly ordered the CBI to register an FIR. It was also found that the case records furnished before the court in a sealed cover by the CBI reveal sufficient materials for registering an FIR.