Bombay High Court
Pawandeepsing Mahendrasing ... vs The State Of Maharashtra And Anr on 7 December, 2016
Bench: S.S. Shinde
1 Cri.A-5481-16
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 5481 OF 2016
1. Pawandeepsing Mahendrasing Kohli
Age: 35 years, Occu. Business,
2. Tejindarkaur W/o Mahendrasing Kohli
Age: 55 years, Occu. Household,
Both R/o Plot No. 278, N-3
CIDCO, Aurangabad. ...APPLICANTS
versus
1. The State of Maharashtra
Through Police Inspector
Mukundwadi Police Station,
Aurangabad.
2. The Branch Manager,
Malkapur Urban Cooperative Bank Ltd.,
Aurangabad. ...RESPONDENTS
.....
Mr. Amol Gawali , Advocate for applicants
Mr. P. S. Patil, APP for respondent - State
Mr. N. T. Tribhuwan, Advocate for Respondent 2
....
CORAM : S.S. SHINDE, AND
K.K. SONAWANE, JJ.
DATED : 7 th DECEMBER, 2016.
ORAL JUDGMENT :- ( Per : S.S. Shinde, J.)
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally with the
consent of parties.
2. This application is filed by the applicants under section 482 of
the Code of Criminal Procedure with following prayer:
"[A] The Hon'ble High Court may be pleased to quash
and set aside the FIR bearing Crime No. I-858 dated
12-11-2015 registered at Mukundwadi Police Station,
Aurangabad for the offence punishable under sections
2 Cri.A-5481-16
420, 199, 200, 406 read with section 34 of the Indian
Penal Code against the present Applicants."
3. The learned counsel appearing for the applicants submits that
pursuant to alleged First Information Report (for short "FIR) filed by
respondent No. 2, present applicant No. 1, who is power of attorney
holder of Guruleenkaur Kohli W/o Pawandeepsingh Kohli had settled
the outstanding loan by virtue of a one time settlement, by paying an
amount of Rs. 95,00,000/- (Rupees Ninety Five Lakhs). He further
submits that the Branch Manager of respondent No. 2-bank, in
furtherance of one time settlement, had issued two separate
certificates, certifying that the term loan taken by applicant No. 1 has
been cleared off and there are no outstanding dues from the loan
Account No. 001150120000161 and further certifying that the charge
on the property bearing Gut No. 152 (P) admeasuring 62 Aar, situated
at Mauje Balapur, Taluka and District Aurangabad has been released in
view of the one time settlement and the bank does not have any
charge on the said property.
4. The learned counsel appearing for the applicants further
submitted that Branch Manager, Malkapur Urban Co-operative bank,
Jawahar colony, Aurangabad, by his letter addressed to the Inspector,
Pundalik Nagar Police Station, Aurangabad, had conveyed that in view
of the payment of the term loan by applicant No.1 and issuance of 'No
Dues Certificate' against the term loan facility bearing No.
001150120000161, the bank is withdrawing the FIR lodged on 19-10-
2015 bearing No. 508, which was subsequently numbered as Crime No.
3 Cri.A-5481-16
I-858 of 2015 with the Mukundwadi Police Station.
5. Pursuant to the notice, on behalf of respondent No. 2 - bank,
one Mr. Rajendra Namdeo Jadhav, working as Manager and authorized
Officer for the Malkapur Urban co-op. Bank Ltd. Malkapur has filed the
affidavit in-reply. In paragraph No. 7 of said reply, it is stated that
during pendency of the said S.A. No.45 of 2016, the applicant -
borrower approached to the bank and requested for one time
settlement of his loan account. After negotiations, the loan account
was settled at Rs. 95,00,000/- (Rupees Ninety Five Lakhs). The
applicant has deposited entire consideration amount with respondent
No. 2 - Bank towards one time settlement of his loan account.
Accordingly, 'No Dues Certificate' to that effect has been issued by
respondent No. 2 bank on 01-06-2016. It is specifically stated that in
view of the fact that the bank's dues in respect of the said term loan
account standing in the name of the borrower are cleared off,
respondent No. 2 bank has released its charge over the said land
property bearing Gut No. 152 part admeasuring 62 Aar, at village
Balapur, Taluka and District Aurangabad. In paragraph No. 10 of
said reply, it is stated that in view of the settlement of the loan account
of borrower with the present respondent-bank, this Court in the
interest of justice, may pass appropriate orders.
6. We have considered the submissions advanced by the learned
counsel appearing for the applicants and the learned APP appearing for
respondent No. 1 and learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 2.
Upon careful perusal of averments in the application, affidavit in-reply
4 Cri.A-5481-16
filed by respondent No. 2 and also application filed by respondent No.
2, requesting the concerned Police Station for allowing them to
withdraw the impugned FIR, we are of the view that further
continuation of the investigation and proceedings on the basis of crime
No. I-858 of 2015 registered with Mukundwadi Police Station for the
offence punishable under sections 420, 199, 200 and 406 read with
section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, will be abuse of process of law and
exercise in futility and wastage of time of prosecution agency and the
Court.
7.
In light of the discussion herein-above and keeping in view the
exposition of law in the case of Gian Singh Vs State of Punjab and
another reported in (2012) 10 SCC 303, we are of the opinion that
present application deserves to be allowed. The Application is therefore
allowed in terms of prayer clause "A" .
8. Rule is made absolute in above terms.
Sd/- Sd/-
[ K. K. SONAWANE, J.] [ S.S. SHINDE, J.]
MTK
