PUSHPA SINGH Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND THROUGH CBI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) INITIALLY this application had been filed for quashing of the first information report of R.C. Case No. 6(S)/2010A. H.D.R, registered under Section 120B read with Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 of the Indian Penal Code, against the petitioners. Subsequently, on submission of the charge sheet, when cognizance of the offences, as aforesaid, was taken against the petitioners vide order dated 01/02/2011, the said order has been challenged.

(2.) THE case of the C.B.I. is that one written complaint was filed by one Farukh Rashid Bokhari, the then Senior Manager, Allahabad Bank, Zonal Office, Ranchi, alleging therein that petitioner no. 1 Smt. Pushpa Singh, the Managing Director as well as the Directors namely, Saket Kumar Singh (Petitioner no. 2) and Abhijit Kanti Dam (Petitioner no. 3) of M/s Sai Healthways (Incorporation) Private Limited, entered into a conspiracy among themselves and with other persons and in furtherance of the said conspiracy they, on the basis of the forged and fabricated collateral security, induced Officers of Katrasgarh Branch of Allahabad Bank to sanction term loan of  Rs. 1,80,00,000/with cash credit limit of Rs. 15,00,000/. The loan was sanctioned for the purpose of purchasing hospital equipments and other allied assets. Further it has been alleged that the Managing Director and both the Directors got the title deeds of Guarantors / Mortgagors submitted to the Bank for getting the loan sanctioned. After the loan was sanctioned, the borrower company never care to deposit the installments as a result of which loan became sticky and, thereby, the Bank treated the loan and the interest of the amount of Rs. 2,26,93,794. 58/as well as the cash credit limit of Rs. 9,26,085.00/as NonPerforming Assets (NPA). Thus, it has been alleged that the accused persons committed offences under Section 120B read with Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioners as well as the Guarantors/Mortgagors. On such complaint, a case was registered by the CBI as R.C. Case No. 6(S)/2010A. H.D.R. The matter was taken up for investigation. During investigation it was found that the Company did default in repaying the loan amount. However, at the request of the borrowers repayment had been rescheduled but in spite of that, payment was not made. The bank was unable to realize the amount from the mortgaged properties as the sale deeds deposited by the borrowers/guarantors were found to be doctored, whereby actual acreage of purchased land was substantially inflated in the manner given below:

(3.) AS against this, learned counsel appearing for the CBI, by referring to the charge sheet, submits that the CBI during course of investigation did find that the accused persons by getting the sale deeds deposited by the gurantor secured the loan, which was never repaid. The said loan had been secured by making some manipulation in the sale deeds showing acreage of land more than what was there in actual and, thereby, the accused persons secured the loan by producing forged sale deeds. Therefore, the Court has rightly taken cognizance of the offences as aforesaid, which never warrants to be quashed even in a situation where the entire loan money has been repaid. In this connection learned counsel has referred to a decision rendered in a case of ''Central Bureau of InvestigationversusJagjit Singh [2014 (1) East Cr. Cases, 129 (SC)] ''