RAJESH BHATI Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS criminal misc. petition under section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioner with a prayer for quashing the FIR No. 60/2011 dated 27.01.2011 of Police Station, ACB, Jaipur for the offences punishable under sections 13(1)(D) and 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short 'the Act of 1988' hereinafter) read with section 467, 468, 471, 120 -B I.P.C.

(2.) BRIEF facts of the case are that one Birbal Ram resident of village Chak 11 -KD, Tehsil Gharsana, District Sri Ganganagar has lodged a report at Police Station, ACB, Jaipur while alleging that though his grandson Vinod Kumar son of Jagdish Prasad died on 03.03.2007, but the Cashier of The Ganganagar Central Co -operative Bank Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as 'the Bank') in connivance with the Branch Manager of the Rawla Branch of the Bank has drawn amount of ST Loan of Rs. 54,000/ - and Dairy Loan of Rs. 24,000/ - on 26.06.2009 and 21.07.2007 respectively in the name of his grandson. It is alleged that as his grandson died on 03.03.2007, there is no question of taking loan by him after his death but the Cashier Ladhu Ram, in connivance with other employees of the Bank, by putting forged signatures of his grandson, has drawn the said loan amount. One Jangir Singh resident of Chak 10 KD has also filed a complaint while alleging that his wife Raj Kaur died in July, 2007 but Ladhu Ram - Cashier, in connivance with other employees of the Bank, has drawn an amount of Rs. 12,850/ - in her name as ST Loan. It is also alleged that Ladhu Ram - Cashier in connivance with other employees of the Bank has forged the signatures of his wife and thereafter drawn the said amount.

(3.) THE petitioner has challenged the said FIR while alleging that during the departmental enquiry, he was exonerated while concluding that the petitioner was not involved in drawing the loan amount in the names of dead persons and Manager - Shri Pankaj Kumar of the Rawla Branch of Central Co -operative Bank Ltd. was involved. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that once the petitioner has been exonerated in the departmental enquiry, the impugned FIR is liable to be quashed qua the petitioner.