Govind Lal Tamta & Anr vs Nct Of Delhi
2010 Latest Caselaw 269 Del

*      IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+                       CRL.M.C.No.3840/2009.

%                       Reserved on:      13th January, 2010
                        Date of Decision: 19th January, 2010

#      GOVIND LAL TAMTA & ANR             ..... Petitioners
!                 Through:  Mr.L.S.Chauhan,Mr.C.R.Mishra
                        .   Mr.Sarthak Chaudhary, Advs.

                        versus

$      NCT OF DELHI                               ..... Respondent
^                Through:           Mr.Jaideep Malik, APP


*      CORAM:
       HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.K. JAIN

       1.     Whether the Reporters of local papers
              may be allowed to see the judgment?       Yes

       2.     To be referred to the Reporter or not?    Yes

       3.     Whether the judgment should be
              reported in the Digest?                   Yes


: V.K. JAIN, J.

1. This is a petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal

Proceedings for quashing FIR No.539/08 registered at PS Vasant

Kunj under Sections 420/464/468/471 and 120-B of IPC and the

proceedings arising therefrom.

2. The case of the prosecution in brief is that Delhi Public

School, Vasant Kunj received a reference from the Manager,

Delhi State Cooperative Bank Limited and Canara Bank, New

Delhi seeking remittance of the salary of its 14 employees on the

ground that they had defaulted in payment of loans taken by

them. Certain documents were also sent to the school along

with the reference. These documents comprised Identity Card,

Pay Slip and undertaking from the employer. On perusal of the

documents, the school felt that these employees had forged and

fabricated the Pay Slip and undertaking from their employer by

forging the signature of the complainant, Vasant Kunj, and the

stamp of the school. An FIR under Sections 420/464/468/471

and 120-B of IPC was, therefore, registered and investigation

was carried out. The investigation revealed that the petitioner

Govind Lal Tamta had obtained a loan of Rs.17,000/- from Delhi

State Cooperative Bank, 15/16, Janpath Lane, New Delhi on 19 th

May, 2006 by submitting forged undertaking of Delhi Public

School, Vasant Kunj and fabricated pay slip for the month of

February, 2005 showing his net pay as Rs.11,538/- as against

actual net pay of Rs.6,300/-. Similarly, petitioner No.2 Narender

Singh stood surety for petitioner No.1 Govind Lal Tamta by

furnishing a forged undertaking purporting to be issued by Delhi

Public School, Vasant Kunj and a fabricated pay slip for the

month of January, 2005 showing his net pay as Rs.8,824/- as

against actual pay of Rs.4,588/-. The original computer

generated Pay-Slips, duly verified by the Accounts Officer of the

school for the relevant month were obtained from the school for

the purpose of investigation.

3. The petitioners have sought quashing of the FIR

primarily on the ground that they have cleared the loan taken

from Delhi State Cooperative Bank which has also issued the

requisite NOC in this regard. Though it has also been claimed in

the petition that the school had hatched a conspiracy to

terminate their services on the pretext of forgery, no such plea

was urged during arguments.

4. In a recent decision Central Bureau of Investigation

vs. A Ravishankar Prasad & Ors, (2009) 6 SCC 351, CBI

challenged an order passed by the High Court of Madras

quashing criminal proceedings initiated by it under Section 120B

with Section 420 of IPC and Section 13(2) read with Section

13(1) (d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The case

involved respondents entering onto a conspiracy with Chairman

and Managing Director and other officials of Indian Bank with

the object to cheat bank in the matter of obtaining credit

facilities. The respondents cleared entire dues, by paying an

amount of Rs. 1.57 crore to the bank and filed an application

under Section 482 of Cr. P.C. pursuant to which proceedings

against the respondents were quashed by the High Court. The

Hon'ble Supreme Court, however, allowed the appeal filed by

the CBI and set aside the order passed by the High Court.

5. In Smt. Rumi Dhar Vs. State of West Bengal & Anr. ,

JT 2009 (5) SC 321, an FIR was registered by CBI u/s 120-

B/420/467/468/471 of IPC. The Bank Officers were also

prosecuted under Prevention of Corruption Act. There was a

settlement of the appellants with the banks. An application u/s

239 of Cr.P.C. was filed for dropping the criminal proceedings.

The prayer was rejected by holding that the offence being

against the society and investigation having been made by CBI,

settlement could not have been entered into. The appeal filed

by the appellant was rejected by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.

6. In Sushil Suri vs. CBI & Anr., Crl.M.C. 3842/2008,

decided on 4.9.2009, this court declined to quash an FIR

registered by CBI under Sections 120B/409/420/468/471 of IPC,

despite a settlement between the petitioner and respondent

No.2.

7. In Crl.M.C. 1304/2004, 6389/2006 and 6600-04/2006,

all decided by a common order dated 23rd May, 2008 this court

declined to quash the FIRs alleging forgery and use of forged

documents despite compromise between private parties noticing

the report of FSL which indicated forgery of documents.

8. In the present case, the petitioners and some other

employees of Delhi Public School not only forged or got forged

the Salary Slip and Undertaking purporting to be issued by the

school, they also cheated a bank by obtaining loan on the basis

of forged documents. The money kept in a bank belongs to the

depositors and not to the management or employees of the bank.

If loan is obtained from a bank by cheating it and using forged

documents for the purpose, it is the depositors of the bank who

suffer on account the fraud committed with the bank, because,

in case the money does not come back to the bank, it will not be

in a position to return the money kept by the depositors with it,

thereby resulting in loss to the depositors. Therefore, though

technically the bank is a legal entity, the sufferers in case of

fraud with a bank are the members of the general public who

keep their hard earned money with the bank, in the hope that

they would earn interest on it and would get it back as and when

required by them. In fact, recently, there have been cases

where Cooperative Banks have defaulted in fulfillment of their

obligations on account of the money of the depositors kept in the

bank having been misappropriated or diverted by way of loans to

those who were not bona fide borrowers and did not intend to

pay the loan taken by them from these small banks. A large

bank may be in a position to absorb the losses sustained by it on

account of such frauds but it may not always be possible for a

small bank, such as a Cooperative Bank, to absorb such loss and

fulfil all its obligations even in the event of default on account of

such borrowers not repaying the loan taken by by them.

9. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of

Ravishanker Parasd(supra) and Smt. Rumi Dhar (supra) did not

permit dropping of proceedings despite the payment made to the

bank. Though bank officers were also alleged to be involved in

those cases whereas no involvement of a bank officer has so far

surfaced during investigation, Delhi State Cooperative Bank

being a small bank and the depositors with the bank being

people belonging to lower or middle section of the society, it

would not be appropriate to permit quashing of FIR in a case of

this nature. This more so, when the investigation is still in

progress and one does not know whether any bank official was

also involved in the conspiracy pursuant to which loans were

obtained from the bank, or not. In fact considering that a large

number of employees of the same school were able to obtain

loan, from the same bank, adopting the same modus operandi,

would create a reasonable suspicion indicating involvement of

one or more bank officials in the conspiracy. In any case,

neither Delhi Public School nor Delhi State Cooperative Bank

has come to the Court seeking quashing of FIR, nor has either of

them withdrawn the charges against the petitioners.

10. For the reasons given aforesaid, I am of the

considered view that it would not be appropriate to quash the

FIR in question.

11. The petition is, therefore, rejected.

V.K. JAIN (JUDGE) JANUARY 19, 2010 RS/