KRISHNAMOORTHY Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition has been filed by the petitioners praying to quash the criminal proceedings in C.C. No. 182 of 2013 pending on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No. 1, Pollachi, as against the petitioners herein, who have been arrayed as Accused 3 to 5 respectively in this case. The brief facts of the case are as follows-

(2.) Heard the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners, the learned counsel for the 2nd respondent and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor and perused the materials available on record.

(3.) It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the 2nd respondent/defacto-complainant is none other than the brother-in-law of the 1st accused. The 2nd accused, who is the brother of the 1st accused, is working in the State Bank of India, Vellore Branch. The petitioners herein, who are the officials of the State Bank of India, are responsible for verifying the documents and sanctioning loan amount. But, it is alleged that in collusion with the other accused person, without properly verifying the title deeds offered by the principal borrower/A1, without properly scrutinising the payments made by the borrower/A1 for the equipments, the petitioners herein had sanctioned the loan amount of Rs. 59 lakhs to the 1st accused. It is the further case of the prosecution that at the time of applying for the loan, the 1st accused requested the 2nd respondent herein, being his brother-in-law, to stand as guarantor for his loan. Further, the 1st accused had stated that he had offered his property as principal security for his loan and the 2nd respondent's property would be only an additional security. It had been further represented by the 1st accused to the 2nd respondent that even if there is any default in repayment, the Bank will initiate action only as against the property of the principal borrower/A1 and not against the property of the guarantor/defacto-complainant. Hence, believing his words, the 2nd respondent stood as guarantor for the said loan. Thereafter, the 1st accused defaulted in making the repayment. Thus, the 1st accused had deceived the 2nd respondent and committed an offence under Section 417 IPC. The 1st accused has committed an offence under Section 420 IPC against the State Bank of India, since knowing fully well that he neither had the eligibility nor had submitted proper documents to obtain the loan of Rs. 59 lakhs, but managed to obtain the loan by adopting other means. The petitioners herein, being bank officials, caused wrongful loss to the bank by sanctioning an ineligible loan on the basis of the fake documents, thereby committed offence under Sections 409, 109 & 120(B) IPC.