KUMARAVEL Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The revision petitioner, who is arrayed as A-2 in C.C. No. 340 of 2012 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Poonamallee, has come forward with this Criminal Revision Case aggrieved by the dismissal of the petition filed by him seeking for discharge.

(2.) The case of the prosecution is that Mr. K. Ramadoss, Senior Branch Manager, Bank of Baroda, Ramavaram Branch, Chennai has given a complaint stating that Dr. Gunasekaran (A-1) claiming to be a Doctor practicing acupuncture therapy has produced bogus title deeds to obtain a loan amount of Rs.5,50,000/- from the bank. According to the defacto complainant, on 24.08.2006, Dr. Gunasekaran (A-1) approached the Bank and sought for a term loan for developing his clinic at M.G.R. Nagar, Chennai and offered the immovable property standing in his name at No.2-D, First Floor, Ayyappanthyangal Bus Depot, back side of Natesan Nagar, Chennai - 600 056 as security. On 14.09.2006, the bank sanctioned a loan of Rs.5,50,000/- and as per the terms of sanction, the loan amount has to be repaid in instalments commencing from October 2006. However, after availing the loan, the first accused did not repay the instalment amount. The bank also sent several notices and attempted to personally contact A-1 for recovery of the dues, but it went vain. On suspicion, the bank made verification and found that title deeds pertaining to the property offered by A-1 as security was forged and fabricated. In such circumstances, the Manager of the Bank gave a complaint to the respondent police based on which the case in Crime No. 476 of 2007 came to be registered for the offences punishable under Section 465, 467, 468, 471, 420 of IPC. Upon registration of the case, an investigation was carried out during which it came to light that the first accused, out of the loan amount of Rs.5,50,000/- had transferred a sum of Rs.5,01,572/- to the savings bank account of the revision petitioner (A-2) who claimed himself to the proprietor of Digital Video System. It also came to light that the revision petitioner (A-2) has raised bogus invoice in the name of the first accused as though he supplied certain medical equipments, but the fact remains that no such equipment indicated in the invoice was supplied by him to A-1.

(3.) During the pendency of the Criminal trial, the revision petitioner has filed CMP No. 3004 of 2003 before the trial court contending that there is no iota of material evidence made available by the prosecution to connect him to the offences alleged and therefore, he prayed for discharge from the criminal case. The trial court dismissed the petition for discharge, which gave rise to the filing of the present Criminal Revision Case.