ANIL KUMAR Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition has been filed by the petitioner with a prayer to quash the F.I.R. dated 19.4.2015 registered as case crime no. 540 of 2015 under sections 448, 457, 380, 420 I.P.C., police station Sahibabad, District Ghaziabad.

(2.) The prosecution story as mentioned in the F.I.R. is that Oriental Bank of Commerce under the Provisions of Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') requested the District Magistrate, Ghaziabad for taking possession of Flat No. UG-2, situated at Plot No. B-1/154, DLF, Dilshad Extension-2, Bhopura, Ghaziabad. Pursuant thereto under the order of District Magistrate Ghaziabad dated 20.7.2010, the possession of the aforesaid Flat No. UG-2 was made to the Oriental Bank of Commerce with the aid of Senior Superintendent of Police, Ghaziabad. On 1.5.2011, the Oriental Bank of Commerce issued an advertisement in the daily newspaper Amar Ujala/Dainik Jagran by which the aforesaid property was offered to be auctioned pertaining to Iftkhar Ali son of Noor Mohammad and Smt. Farhana wife of Iftkhar Ali. In the aforesaid auction proceeding, the respondent no. 4 was declared to be highest bidder and as such he deposited the requisite amount. On 16.9.2011 when the respondent no. 4 went to inspect the aforesaid Flat No. UG-2, he saw after opening lock of flat that one Raish Ahmad and some other persons were present inside the flat and in this regard when the respondent no. 4 made complaint to the Oriental Bank of Commerce, they asked him to deposit rest of the amount first, thereafter they will ensure the possession to be handed over the respondent no. 4. It is further alleged that pursuant to the aforesaid the respondent no. 4 had deposited the entire amount and the sale has been confirmed and he was put in possession of the aforesaid Flat No. UG-2. On 1.11.2011, the respondent no. 4 stated to have decorated his flat with table, bed, washing machine, almirah, dressing table, dining table etc. It is further stated that on 15.7.2014, the respondent no. 4 after locking his aforesaid flat went to his native place at Bulandshahar. On 2.8.2014, in absence of the respondent no. 4, the petitioner along with Prem Kumar Rajpal, Ravindra Nath, who are the officers of Union Bank of India in connivance with his associate Raj Bhan Singh, Ex-Manager, Oriental Bank of Commerce, Builder Pawan Kumar Sharma and Raish Ahmad and other, after breaking the lock of the flat of the respondent no. 4 stolen all the articles present in the aforesaid flat and also they have taken illegal possession of the same. When the respondent no. 4 went to Union Bank of India, Raj Nagar Branch, Ghaziabad for taking possession back, they informed him that the flat which was taken into possession by the Union Bank of India is Flat No. UG-4 and not UG-2. All the articles found in the flat are articles of Flat No. UG-4. Therefore, they asked the respondent no. 4 to contact the Oriental Bank of Commerce and threatened him that in case he comes again he will be falsely implicated in case of theft and loot. While the respondent no. 4 was talking with the bank officers at the same time Raish Ahmad, Zahir Ahmad and Pawan Kumar Sharma were suddenly reached there. Thereafter, the respondent no. 4 was said to have contact the Oriental Bank of Commerce where the Manager of Union Bank of India was also present. He narrated the entire story to the Manager of the Oriental Bank of Commerce and he was told by the officers of the Oriental Bank that he will have to contact Union Bank of India, as the work of Oriental Bank of Commerce is over, as they have taken money and given him possession, hence the respondent no. 4 lodged the present F.I.R. against the petitioner and other co-accused persons, who are also employees of the bank.

(3.) Pleadings have been exchanged between the parties.