A D SUDHINDHRA Vs. INSPECTOR OF POLICE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE above Criminal Original Petitions have been filed by accused 3 to 5 and the other two accused, who are sought to be implicated in the case, to quash the First Information Report registered by the first respondent in R.C.No.5 (E) / 2008 against them.

(2.) THE brief facts and the allegations as culled out from the First Information Report are set-out below:-(i) THE petitioners in conspiracy with accused-Branch Managers of State Bank of India, Vivekananda House Branch and Personal Banking Branch (PBB) at K.K.Nagar of Chennai cheated the State Bank of India, Chennai, to the tune of Rs.9.30 crores in the matter of fraudulently availing 327 personal loans in the name of bogus and non-existing persons, who were claimed to be employees of Dhanus Technologies Limited. THE accused State Bank Officials without verifying the existence of the persons sanctioned the loans by abusing their official position as public servant. Further, the personal loans sanctioned to so-called employees were later on clandestinely diverted to personal accounts of A-3 to A-5 and utilized for the purpose other than sanctioned for. Several bank accounts were opened at State Bank of India, Vivekananda House Branch, Chennai during the year 2006-2007 in the name of various persons who were shown as the employees of DTL. Most of these accounts were opened by using false identity and residence proof like bogus and forged 'Identity Card & Salary Slip' purportedly issued by DTL. THE accounts were shown to have been introduced by Sri. A.V. Srinivasan, the then Director employee of the company.(ii) Sri. R. Suresh Kumar and Sri. Venkatnarayanan employees of DTL who are the petitioners in Crl.O.P.No.26871 of 2008 have filled up around 70% to 80% account opening forms in the name of fictitious persons showing them as employees of DTL as per the instructions of A-3 to A-5 who were the promoters of the company in which they work and they had to follow the instructions. THEy prepared fictitious loan applications in the name of such persons falsely showing them as employees of M/s. Dhanus Technologies Ltd. Immediately on sanction of loans, they transferred the loan amounts sanctioned in such fictitious names to the accounts of A-3 to A-5 who are the directors of the company as per their instructions.(iii) Using bogus accounts, during 2006-2007, initially 127 applications for sanction of personal loan were made at State Bank of India, Vivekananda House Branch, Chennai. Such loans were dishonestly sanctioned and disbursed without the knowledge of the applicants. THEreafter, such loans were withdrawn either in cash mostly by Sri. R. Suresh Kumar, an employee of DTL or directly transferred to the personal savings accounts of the aforesaid five petitioners maintained at Punjab National Bank, North Usman Road Branch, Chennai.(iv) A partnership firm in the name and style of M/s. Sri Venkateshywara Enterprises, Chennai, was floated and its current account was opened at State Bank of India, Vivekananda House Branch, Chennai. In this account, Sri.R.Suresh Kumar and Sri. Venkatnaraynan (petitioners in Crl.O.P.No.26871 of 2008) employees of DTL were the authorized signatory and partners to operate the account. THE personal loans taken in the name of at least 20 so-called fictitious employees of DTL to the tune of Rs.60 lacs were transferred and credited at the instance of A-3 to A-5 and therefore the same were given back to their company immediately.(v) That, in a similar manner by adopting similar modus operandi, another 20 applications were made at State Bank of India, Personal Banking Branch, KK Nagar, Chennai and the funds so sanctioned were transferred to the personal savings accounts of above petitioners maintained at Punjab National Bank, North Usman Road Branch, Chennai. (vi) On the basis of the aforesaid allegations a case is registered under Sections 120-B read with 420, 409, 468, 471 IPC and 13 (2) read with 13 (1) (C) and (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 against A-3 to A-5 who are also promoters / directors of M/s. Dhanus Technologies Limited (DTL), Chennai, and two Branch Managers of State Bank of India, Chennai namely Sri. N. Chandran and Sri. K. Ravi.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioners reiterated the aforesaid contentions put forth on behalf of the petitioners and further contended that admittedly since the second respondent-Bank had not suffered any financial loss whatsoever it has not lodged any complaint against the petitioners herein or against any officials of the Bank similarly the second respondent has not taken any disciplinary proceedings against A-1 and A-2 the Managers of the two Branches who sanctioned the loans and they have not been placed under suspension and even today they are functioning as managers admittedly only on the basis of an oral anonymous source information the case has been registered by the first respondent that too without verifying the actual facts from the second respondent-Bank when admittedly the entire loan obtained from the two branches had been repaid as evidenced from the 'No Due Certificates' dated 29.02.2008 and 30.05.2008 issued by the Branch Manager, State Bank of India, K.K.Nagar Branch and the Branch Manager, State Bank of India, Vivekananda House Branch, Chennai - 5, respectively, the case has been registered on 27.06.2008 only without verifying as to whether any wrongful loss has been caused to the Bank. LEARNED counsel further submitted that a sum of Rs.5.25 crores which was deposited as fixed deposits as security for the sanction of the loan to the employees of the company had not been withdrawn even after the entire loan availed from both the branches were cleared even though lien marked on the deposits were cancelled. He further submitted that no offence whatsoever has been committed by the petitioners herein. He further submitted that unless the first information report is quashed the company which has come to a stand still because of the pendency of the case will have to be permanently closed which will not only result in great financial loss to the company and its share holders but it will adversely affect the interest of the employees and as a consequence thereof the employees will lose their jobs and further the valuable foreign exchange earned by the company to the Country will also be lost.