BIJAYA KRUSHNA MOHAPATRA Vs. STATE OF ODISHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The prayer made in the CRLMC is to quash the criminal proceeding against the petitioner in CTR No.27 of 2015 corresponding to SBP Vig. G.R. Case No.25 of 2013 arising out of SBP Vig. P.S. Case No.28 of 2013.

(2.) The short facts involved in this case are an FIR in Sambalpur Vigilance P.S. Case No.28 of 2013 was came to be lodged against the petitioner alleging that he being the Bank Manager of SDCC Bank, Mahila Branch, Rourkela, sanctioned a loan of Rs.4,00,000.00 (Rupees Four Lakhs) to co-accused Bikrant Keshari Samanta, the Proprietor of M/s. Shivangnee Infotech, on execution of a mortgage deed with him by the loanee and guarantor Sudhir Kumar Dasgupta, but subsequently, co-accused loanee applied for enhancement of loan amount from Rs.4,00,000.00 (Rupees Four Lakhs) to Rs.12,00,000.00 (Rupees Twelve Lakhs), which was processed by the petitioner after observing other formalities, but the co-accused loanee was considered for sanction of additional loan of Rs.4,00,000.00 (Rupees Four Lakhs) on 19/1/2007. On enquiry, it was revealed that the petitioner by entering into criminal conspiracy with co-accused loanee and guarantor had executed mortgage deed with them in respect of Khata No.109, Plot No.316 of Mouza-Jalda violating the provision of Sec. 28 of the Registration Act, 1908. On registration of FIR, the investigation ensued and in the course of investigation, it was ascertained that Sudhir Kumar Dasgupta was a fictitious guarantor as the photo, thumb impression and signature as available in the deed were not matching with the same in loan file and no such person was available in the address given in the mortgage deed as well as in the loan application. On conclusion of investigation, charge-sheet was submitted against the petitioner and others for offence U/Ss. 13(2) read with Sec. 13(1)(d) of the P.C. Act, 1988 and Sec. 468/420/471/120-B of IPC. Hence, this CRLMC.

(3.) In the course of hearing the CRLMC, Mr. B.K. Ragada, learned counsel for the petitioner by relying upon the decision in the case of N.K. Illiyas Vrs. State of Kerala; AIR 2012 SC 3790 and Nikhil Merchant Vrs. CBI and Another; (2008) 41 OCR (SC) 427 submits that for a moment, if the allegations on record are taken into consideration, the loanee having already cleared the loan amount, the criminal liability of the petitioner is foreclosed/extinguished, but notwithstanding to such facts, the learned trial Court is proceeding against the petitioner. It is also submitted by him that since no wrongful loss has been caused to the Bank, the criminal case against the petitioner is misnomer in the eye of law and, thereby, the criminal proceeding against the petitioner is an abuse of process of Court and to secure the ends of justice, the criminal proceeding against the petitioner may kindly be quashed.