DINESH Vs. STATE OF M.P. & ANR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision filed under Section 397/401 Cr.P.C is directed against the order dated 23.09.2013 whereby the court below has framed charge under Section 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 & 120(B) of IPC.

(2.) It is contended that police station Mungaoli registered a criminal case as Crime No. 7/2008 under aforesaid sections of IPC on the basis of belated report of complainant / respondent No.2. It is stated that complainant before lodging the FIR preferred a private complaint against four persons. In the said complaint, the present revisionist was not arraigned as accused. In the said complaint there was no averment against the present revisionist. The revisionist, at the relevant time was working as Assistant Manager in State Bank of India. He was In-charge of cash at branch. In view of said sensitive duty, the revisionist was required to stay at the branch itself and he was not entrusted with any field work. In the instant case, the revisionist has only verified the valuation of loan amount to be sanctioned as per NABARD norms and as per bank scale of finance rules. The said disbursement of loan was made on the basis of search report submitted by the counsel for the bank. As per the survey report and recommendation of Branch Manager, sanctioning authority had sanctioned the loan amount. Revisionist had no role to play in relation to identification of person.

(3.) It is urged by the revisionist that as per prosecution story the son of complainant got prepared the loan case showing himself as Halku Singh. In other words, the son of complainant / respondent No.2 acted as impostor and projected himself as complainant / Halku Singh and then he put his thumb impression by projecting it to be thumb impression of his father Halku Singh on the loan papers. He, by said act fraudulently and dishonestly obtained the loan. The matter was reported to the police and aforesaid criminal case under various sections was registered.