PATEL KIRITKUMAR MULCHANDBHAI Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These petitions involve identical questions. They have, therefore, been heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.

(2.) The petitioners were the principal borrowers who had borrowed certain sums of money for business purpose from respondent No.3, Sarvoday Nagrik Sahakari Bank Ltd. Against the petitioners and large number of other borrowers of the bank, a criminal complaint bearing C.R.No.122/05 came to be filed on 1.5.2005 before Visnagar Police Station. In the complaint, it is stated inter alia that large number of persons had taken loans from the bank during the period between 1998 and 2003 by breaching the requirement of granting such loans. In the complaint, it is stated that such loans were given by committing large scale irregularities and keeping the rules and regulations of the Bank aside. It is further stated that when the borrowers could not pay the interest and the principal sum borrowed, larger loans were released to cover the unpaid dues. It is further stated that the irregularities were committed also with respect to guarantors of such loans. It is stated that without verifying whether there is sufficient property to permit the person to stand as a guarantor, in some cases by inflating the value of the property, guarantees were accepted, due to which the guarantors had defaulted and did not fulfill promise of repayment of loans. It is, therefore, stated that such persons have defrauded the bank, committed cheating and criminal breach of trust. The complaint carried an annexure in which details of such borrowings, details of principal borrowers and guarantors, etc. were mentioned. It is not in dispute that the petitioners were named as principal borrowers in the annexure to the complaint.

(3.) The petitioners sought to challenge the filing of the complaint on the ground that no criminal case is made out and the dispute, if at all between the parties, is one of civil nature. On behalf of the petitioners, it was contended that the bank had lodged summary suit in the Lavad court before filing the complaint. It was, therefore, contended that the criminal complaint is filed only with a view to seeking recovery and in reality it is case of civil suit. It is further contended that the complaint is vague and general and discloses no offence against the petitioners.