BHUPENDRA RAMANLAL PATEL Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned Advocate Mr. Aditya A. Gupta on behalf of the applicant, learned APP Ms. M.D. Mehta for the respondent - State. Upon notice being issued to the bank concerned today order of this Court dtd. 16/2/2022 learned Advocate Mr. S.K. Bagga has entered appearance for the newly joined party.

(2.) By way of this application the applicant prays for quashing of the FIR being C.R. I-No.24 of 2018 registered with the Gujarat University Police Station, Ahmedabad City for offences punishable under Ss. 406 , 420 and 120(B) of the IPC on 20/2/2018. Learned Advocate Mr. Aditya A. Gupta on behalf of the petitioner would draw the attention of this Court to order of this Court dtd. 16/2/2022 whereby this Court had interalia noted that the present applicant had been arraigned as accused in the impugned FIR filed by the Chief Manager of the bank concerned and whereas there was no privity of contract between the bank and the applicant. Learned advocate would submit that as such one Mr. Ritesh Kotak accused in the FIR, had entered into an agreement to sale with the present applicant for sale of two apartments in the scheme known as "Rajlabhi Haritage" situated at Gandhinagar. Learned Advocate would submits that while the bank had disbursed the loan and whereas the loan amount had been received in the account of the present applicant, yet since the said Mr. Ritesh Kotak, had not come forward for having the sale deed done, the present applicant had sold the property to some third party. Learned Advocate would submits that be that as it may, the FIR was filed interalia alleging that Ritesh Kotak after paying an amount of approximately twenty lac rupees, had defaulted on the payment of the remaining twenty four lac rupees approximately and whereas the flat had been sold to some third party. Learned Advocate would submit subsequent to filing of the FIR, the present applicant had entered into a one time settlement with the bank and whereas an amount of rupees twenty lacs, as against total dues of Rs.26,44,800.03, had been paid by the applicant to the bank. Learned Advocate would further submit that on basis of the one time settlement, even the application preferred by the bank under Sec. 19 of the RDDB Act, had been withdrawn by the bank, as noted by the learned DRT in O.A. No.613 of 2018. Learned Advocate would therefore submits that since as far as the present applicant is concerned he has paid up the entire outstanding of the bank and since there was no privity of contract between the applicant and the bank therefore the FIR in so far as the present applicant is concerned may be quashed by this Court.

(3.) Learned Advocate Mr. Bagga appearing on behalf of the bank has drawn the attention of this Court to a communication by the bank dtd. 21/6/2019 whereby the OTS proposal of the present applicant had been accepted by the bank. Learned Advocate Mr. Bagga would submit that while it is true that the bank had settled with the present applicant more particularly, the bank having accepted the amount of rupees twenty lacs as against the total dues of Rs.26,44,800.03 but as per the terms of the OTS, it would not be possible for the bank to give any consent for quashing of the impugned FIR.