KAILASHCHANDRA Vs. VIKRAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has filed this petition under Section 482 of the CrPC for quashing the complaint, the order dated 27.9.2010 and subsequent proceedings in Criminal Complaint Case No.15828 of 2010 cause title Vikram Sharma Vs. Kailashchandra Agrawal and others insofar as he is concerned, pending before the court of J.M.F.C Gwalior.

(2.) The brief facts necessary for adjudication of this petition are given below :-

(3.) Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the SBI had held an internal enquiry in the alleged fraud and in the course of which respondent No.1/complainant is found solely responsible for verifying the documents of identification of the fake borrowers and their fake guarantors and causing disappearance of material documents. Thereupon, the SBI had not only terminated his services but directed accused No.2 Sunil Dutt Gupta to lodge the police report against him, bogus borrowers and their bogus guarantors. Thereupon, he lodged the FIR against respondent No.1/complainant, bogus borrowers and their guarantors at Police Station Kampoo Gwalior. The police registered the FIR at Crime No.324 of 2004 under Sections 420 , 409 and 201 IPC against respondent No.1/complainant and others. He further submitted that in that police case, the petitioner and the accused Nos. 2 to 4 are the main prosecution witnesses. As a counter blast, respondent No.1/complainant has filed this complaint with malafides to impeach their credibilities in the police case and to harass and torture them mentally, physically and financially. After referring to the contents of the entire complaint, he further submitted that there is no iota of allegation against the petitioner in the complaint as to why he has been made an accused in complaint case by respondent no.1/complainant. He further submitted that in view of the above facts, the parameter No.7 laid down in the case of State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal, 1992 AIR 604 SC, is applicable for quashing the complaint, the order dated 27.9.2010 and subsequent proceedings in Criminal Complaint Case No.15828 of 2010 insofar as the petitioner is concerned.