MANOJ SADASHIVA PURI Vs. STATE AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Through the medium of instant petition filed under Section 561-A Cr.P.C, petitioner seeks quashing of order dated 03rd June, 2017, passed by Special Judge Anti-Corruption, Jammu in case titled, "State Vs. Ram Lal Gupta and ors.", by virtue of which charges for commission of offences under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 201, 120-B RPC read with 5(2) P.C. Act have been framed against the accused persons except accused No.3 (respondent No.4 herein), namely, Munish Gupta. Petitioner also prays for his discharge from the said challan.

(2.) The facts of the case are that the petitioner is Director of M/s Millennium Econometrics Research Publication Pvt. Ltd., 15-C Ext. 1st Floor, Gandhi Nagar, Jammu. The petitioner is an individual and the company is two different legal entities. Under the Priority Sector-e-Advances Scheme (PSAS), the company had applied for grant of loan from the UCO Bank through its Branch at Railway Road, Gandhi Nagar, Jammu for sanction of term loan of Rs.10.00 lacs and CC limit of Rs.10.00 lacs under the CGTM Scheme of Govt. of India. The proposal for grant of loan was initiated and was supported by the Primary Security of Fixed Assets for Rs.10.70 lacs and Collateral Security of Rs.54.47 lacs. Even providing sufficient security and even in view of the policy of the Government for grant of collateral free loan, the Bank Manager insisted for the petitioner to arrange a third party mortgage against the bank norms/clause. The collateral security by way of mortgage of immovable property of 12 Kanals and 05 Marlas of plot situated at Village Lakshmanpur was offered, which was refused by the bank on the ground that the distance of the collateral security is greater than 9 Kms. This too is against the RBI norms, which has dropped this practice from January, 2005. While the matter was being discussed with the Branch Manager, the accused No.3, namely, Munish Gupta, who was incidentally present on spot intervened and on his own offer to arrange collateral security from out of his own contacts. He further assured that he will take care of due diligence, legal opinion and valuation from the approved lawyer/evaluator. The petitioner has never signed any document pertaining to the arrangement or attestation of mortgage of the land arranged by the said accused No.3 and all the transactions ensued between accused No.3 and accused No. 5.

(3.) It is stated in the instant petition that a term loan of Rs.8.00 lacs and CC Limit of Rs. 10.00 lacs was sanctioned. Initially, there was suppose to be a moratorium period of 12 months for repayment of loan, however, the Bank made deductions from very first month of sanction of loan. This resulted in breach of the conditions of the loan. The company raised a dispute on 30 th June, 2008, bringing it to the notice of the Bank that it was indulging in over charging of installments. Subsequently, an offer was made to the Bank to settle the loan as per the RBI norms and policies. The matter was delayed by the UCO Bank on flimsy grounds and different tracks. The only misfortune of the petitioner is that he faced the following situation during this period:-