Orissa High Court
Tanmaya Pattnaik vs State Of Odisha & Another .... Opp. ... on 24 September, 2025
Author: Chittaranjan Dash
Bench: Chittaranjan Dash
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
CRLMC No. 3115 of 2008
Tanmaya Pattnaik .... Petitioner
Mr. Ashok Kumar Parija, Sr. Advocate
along with Mr. P.K. Dash, Advocate
-versus-
State of Odisha & another .... Opp. Parties
Ms. S. Mohanty, Addl. P.P.
CRLMC No. 3116 of 2008
Tanmaya Pattnaik .... Petitioner
Mr. Ashok Kumar Parija, Sr. Advocate
along with Mr. P.K. Dash, Advocate
-versus-
State of Odisha & another .... Opp. Parties
Ms. S. Mohanty, Addl. P.P.
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE CHITTARANJAN DASH
Date of Judgment: 24.09.2025
Chittaranjan Dash, J.
1. Heard learned counsels for both the Parties.
2. By means of these applications, the Petitioner seeks to
invoke the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section
482 of the Cr.P.C. for quashing of the criminal proceedings
arising out of G.R. Case Nos. 3966 of 2006 and 3969 of 2006
pending before the learned S.D.J.M., Bhubaneswar, wherein
the learned Court has taken cognizance of the offences under
Sections 420, 468, 471, 418 and 120-B of the IPC by orders
dated 05.01.2007 and 19.01.2007 respectively.
3. The background facts, as emerge from both CRLMC
Nos. 3115 and 3116, are that on 01.10.2006, a common
informant, namely Rashmi Ranjan Mohapatra, Manager
(Legal) of ICICI Bank Ltd., Bhubaneswar, lodged written
reports before the IIC, Kharvelnagar Police Station alleging
fraudulent availment of vehicle loans by borrowers in
collusion with Direct Sales Agencies (DSAs) and others,
resulting in wrongful loss to the Bank. In one case, it was
alleged that borrower Sarifuddin Khan, sourced by M/s D.P.
Marketing, availed a loan for a Mitsubishi Lancer under Loan-
cum-Hypothecation Agreement No. LUBBS00003797517 for
Rs. 4,36,000/-. The borrower submitted attested copies of
documents which, upon verification, were found to be forged,
the vehicle being already registered and hypothecated
elsewhere. In the other case, it was alleged that borrower
Bhubanananda Panda, sourced by M/s Grey Marketing &
Finance managed by Dipti Das, availed a loan for a Chevrolet
Optra LX under Loan-cum-Hypothecation Agreement No.
LUBBS00005506605 for Rs. 4,50,000/-. The documents
submitted were later found to be false, as the registration
number corresponded to a Bajaj motorcycle registered in
another person's name. On the basis of these two complaints,
Kharvelnagar P.S. Case No. 282/06 gave rise to G.R. Case No.
3966 of 2006, in which cognizance was taken by the learned
S.D.J.M., Bhubaneswar vide order dated 05.01.2007, and
Kharvelnagar P.S. Case No. 285/06 gave rise to G.R. Case No.
3969 of 2006, in which cognizance was taken vide order dated
19.01.2007. In both matters, charge-sheets dated 05.01.2007
were submitted against the petitioners and others for offences
under Sections 420, 468, 471, 418 and 120-B IPC.
4. Mr. Parija, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the
Petitioner, inter alia, submitted that the Petitioner is a highly
qualified professional, having obtained his post-graduate
degree with First Class distinction and an MBA degree from
the University of Wales, U.K. He further submitted that the
Petitioner joined ICICI Bank on 12.06.2001 as Sales Manager
(Personal Loan and Credit Card) and thereafter worked in
various wings of the Bank. In recognition of his performance,
the Petitioner was promoted to the post of Area Credit
Manager (Car Loan) to oversee operations in three States,
namely, Orissa, Chhattisgarh and Jharkhand, covering 12
Credit Processing Agencies. Under his supervision, the
business volume averaged around Rs. 32 crores per month,
processed from nearly 2,000 files (Computerised Appraisal
Memos) monthly.
It is further submitted that the allegations made in the
FIR as well as in the charge-sheet, which form the basis of
G.R. Case No. 3966 of 2006, even if taken at their face value
and accepted in their entirety, do not prima facie constitute any
offence or make out a case against the Petitioner. According to
Mr. Parija, the uncontroverted allegations in the FIR and
charge-sheet, even when read with the statements of witnesses
recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and the documents relied
upon, do not disclose the commission of any offence under
Sections 420/468/471/418/120-B of the IPC.
He contended that the allegations are absurd and
inherently improbable, such that no prudent person could
conclude that there exist sufficient grounds to proceed against
the Petitioner for the aforesaid offences. It was further argued
that the criminal proceeding against the Petitioner has been
initiated with mala fide intent, at the instance of certain rival
officers, to wreak vengeance upon him. He emphasised that
nowhere in the FIR, charge-sheet, or witness statements under
Section 161 Cr.P.C. has it been alleged that the Petitioner ever
entered into a conspiracy with the customer, namely
Sarifuddin Khan, to commit the alleged offences.
On the aspect of conspiracy under Section 120-B IPC,
Mr. Parija submitted that proof of a "meeting of minds" and a
conscious sharing of criminal intention among the alleged
conspirators is essential. The gist of conspiracy lies in the
agreement to commit an unlawful act. Mere allegations of
conspiracy, unsupported by evidence of such agreement or
acts preparatory to the commission of the offence, are
insufficient to attract the provisions of Section 120-B IPC.
Mr. Parija further submitted that the Petitioner was
never authorised to verify or scrutinise the genuineness of the
documents submitted by the loanee to avail the used car loan.
The allegations levelled against the Petitioner are false,
baseless, fabricated and concocted, and are neither supported
by documents nor corroborated by any witness statement. He
pointed out that the Petitioner neither sanctioned the loan nor
verified the documents submitted by the loanee. On the
contrary, during his tenure, he was instrumental in detecting
the present fraud. Surprisingly, however, false allegations have
been made against him by the Fraud Detection Squad (Risk
Containment Unit), who were in fact responsible for such
irregularities. In support of this, it was highlighted that the
RCU Manager, an officer of equivalent rank to the Petitioner,
had confirmed in his statement before the Investigating
Officer, on oath, that detection of fraud was the responsibility
of the RCU.
He further clarified that the Petitioner had no occasion
to verify the Registration Certificate book or any other
documents, as several specialised and authorised agencies of
ICICI Bank Ltd., such as the Field Investigation Agency,
Approved Valuers, and the Fraud Detection Squad (RCU),
were responsible for verifying and certifying loan proposals.
Only upon scrutiny and clearance by these agencies would the
Credit Processing Agency (CPA) of ICICI Bank sanction the
loan. The Petitioner's role was limited to according sanction
on the basis of such verified reports. In the present case,
however, the Petitioner did not sanction the loan, as on the
date of approval he was on leave; the sanction was accorded
by the Regional Credit Manager, Kolkata.
Finally, Mr. Parija submitted that the settled legal
position is that, while considering a prayer for quashing at the
initial stage of prosecution, the test is whether the
uncontroverted allegations, taken at face value, prima facie
disclose the commission of any offence. The Court must also
take into account the special features of the case to determine
whether it is expedient and in the interest of justice to allow
the prosecution to continue. In light of the facts and
circumstances, he urged that the criminal proceeding in G.R.
Case No. 3966 of 2006 and the cognizance taken by the
learned S.D.J.M., Bhubaneswar vide order dated 05.01.2007
be quashed.
5. Ms. Mohanty, learned counsel for the State, on the
other hand, submitted that the materials placed in the FIR as
well as in the charge-sheet are sufficient to implicate the
present Petitioner. It was contended that the Petitioner, being
the officer at the helm of affairs responsible for sanctioning
the loan, failed to scrutinise the documents submitted by the
customer and, in connivance with the agency as well as the
borrower, accorded sanction and facilitated disbursement of
the loan amount. Accordingly, he is amenable to prosecution
for the offences alleged against him.
6. Admittedly, the FIR lodged by the Manager of ICICI
Bank does not implicate the Petitioner in any manner with
regard to the transactions in question, either directly or
indirectly, in the discharge of his official duties in connection
with the disbursement of the loan amounts. A large number of
documents were seized during the course of investigation,
which now form part of the final reports submitted by the
police on 05.01.2007. From the charge-sheets, it emerges that
the process of sanctioning the loans, which were initiated and
ultimately culminated in the disbursement of the respective
loan amounts of Rs.4,36,000/- in favour of Sarifuddin Khan
and Rs.4,50,000/- in favour of Bhubanananda Panda, were
transacted in the following manner:
(a) The loan applications of the respective borrowers
were sourced and submitted by Direct Sales Agents
(DSAs) appointed by the Bank, namely, M/s D.P.
Marketing in the case of Sarifuddin Khan and M/s Grey
Marketing & Finance managed by Dipti Das in the case
of Bhubanananda Panda. As per Clauses 3.1, 3.2, 3.4
and 4.1 of the agreement between the Bank and the
DSAs, the DSAs were responsible to carry out the field
verification and investigation to ascertain the
genuineness and authenticity of the information
furnished by the loanees. Thereafter, the loan
applications were received by the Credit Processing
Unit (CPU), which was functioning under the direct
control of the Petitioner, the Area Credit Manager (Car
Loans). The CPU, in turn, sent the files to M/s D.M.
Associates, the authorized Chartered Accountant of the
Bank, for verification of the information pertaining to
residence, business and telephone numbers furnished by
the borrowers. Upon verification by M/s D.M.
Associates, the files were processed further and sent to
the Risk Contentment Unit of the Bank for scrutiny.
(b) As per the statement of Mr. Purnendu Kumar
Subudhi (Area Manager, Risk Contentment Unit), it
was the duty of the Risk Contentment Unit to detect
forgery, manipulation or corrections from the face of
the documents. On receipt of the reports from the Risk
Contentment Unit, the CPU sought the approval of the
Regional Credit Manager, Kolkata, for disbursement of
the loans. Accordingly, Mr. Bikram Verma, Regional
Credit Manager, Kolkata, granted approval for the
disbursement. Pursuant thereto, loan agreements were
executed between the respective borrowers and the
Bank on 01.05.2005 in the case of Sarifuddin Khan for
Rs.4,36,000/- and subsequently, in the case of
Bhubanananda Panda for Rs.4,50,000/- and the loan
amounts were disbursed.
7. Admittedly, the FIR lodged by the Manager of ICICI
Bank does not implicate the Petitioner in any manner with
regard to the transactions in question, either directly or
indirectly, in the discharge of his official duties in connection
with the disbursement of the loan amounts. A large number of
documents were seized during the course of investigation,
which now form part of the final reports submitted by the
police on 05.01.2007. From the charge-sheets, it emerges that
the process of sanctioning the loans, which were initiated and
ultimately culminated in the disbursement of amounts of
Rs.4,36,000/- in favour of Sarifuddin Khan and Rs.4,50,000/-
in favour of Bhubanananda Panda, followed the same
standardised chain of procedure.
8. The applications were first sourced and submitted
through Direct Sales Agents (DSAs) M/s D.P. Marketing in
the case of Sarifuddin Khan and M/s Grey Marketing &
Finance managed by Dipti Das in the case of Bhubanananda
Panda. Under the contractual obligations, the DSAs were
responsible for carrying out field verification and ensuring the
authenticity of the particulars furnished by the borrowers.
Thereafter, the applications were processed by the Credit
Processing Unit (CPU), functioning under the Petitioner in his
capacity as Area Credit Manager (Car Loans). The CPU
forwarded the files to M/s D.M. Associates, the authorised
Chartered Accountant of the Bank, for verification of
residence, business and telephone details of the borrowers. On
receipt of the verification reports, the CPU transmitted the
files to the Risk Contentment Unit (RCU) for scrutiny.
9. According to the statement of Mr. Purnendu Kumar
Subudhi (Area Manager, RCU), it was the specific function of
the RCU to detect any signs of forgery, manipulation or
irregularities from the face of the documents. On completion
of this stage, the CPU sought approval from the Regional
Credit Manager, Kolkata. Mr. Bikram Verma, Regional Credit
Manager, accordingly granted approval for both loans.
Pursuant thereto, loan agreements were executed between the
borrowers and the Bank, and the sanctioned amounts of
Rs.4,36,000/- and Rs.4,50,000/- respectively were disbursed.
10. The allegations in the charge-sheets broadly suggest
that the Petitioner, being the Area Credit Manager, criminally
conspired with the respective Direct Sales Agents and the
borrowers, namely Sarifuddin Khan in relation to the
Mitsubishi Lancer loan (Rs.4,36,000/-) and Bhubanananda
Panda in relation to the Chevrolet Optra LX loan
(Rs.4,50,000/-), by accepting forged and fabricated
registration certificates and other documents which had been
submitted to the Bank through the DSAs. It is alleged that
such documents were accepted to be genuine without
independent verification. However, neither in the FIRs lodged
by the informant nor in the statements recorded under Section
161 Cr.P.C. has any responsibility been attributed to the
Petitioner personally to verify the loan applications or the
supporting documents. On the contrary, the documents and the
agreements between the ICICI Bank and its DSAs reveal that
it was the contractual obligation of the DSAs to carry out
investigation and ascertain the genuineness of the particulars
furnished by the loan applicants. Clause 4.14 of the agreement
further makes it explicit that the DSAs are bound to indemnify
the Bank against any loss suffered on account of deficiencies
or inaccuracies in the information submitted with the loan
applications. The role and responsibilities of the DSAs are
further substantiated by the statement of Mr. Krishna Kisore
Neelamraju, Product Manager (Car Loans), who stated that
DSAs were required to identify potential customers, collect all
necessary documents, verify the originals, and submit duly
attested photocopies to the Bank. In fact, guidelines and
instructions were periodically issued and training programs
conducted to ensure that DSAs adhered to the prescribed
procedure, including collection of registration certificates from
the RTO before disbursement. Thus, the primary obligation of
verifying genuineness lay with the DSAs, and the records also
reveal that the Risk Contentment Unit of the Bank was tasked
with scrutinising the loan documents to detect any forgery or
manipulation committed by the borrowers.
11. The documents appended to the charge-sheet further
reveal that the scope of work performed by the Risk
Containment Unit clearly establishes that the said department
is entrusted with fraud prevention and detection exercises in
respect of retail loan proposals. It specifically provides that if
the Risk Containment Unit reports submission of any
fraudulent document along with the loan proposal, such
proposal is to be declined. The various clauses enumerated in
the Auto Credit Policy also demonstrate that it is the sole
responsibility of the Risk Containment Unit to detect any
forged or manipulated document submitted with a loan
proposal. The documents on record further disclose that the
Petitioner had duly forwarded the loan proposal to the Risk
Containment Unit for scrutiny, and since no adverse report
was given by that Unit, the Petitioner, in due course,
transmitted the proposal to the Regional Credit Manager,
Kolkata for approval.
12. From the above, it is evident that the Petitioner, in the
discharge of his official duties, meticulously followed the
prescribed protocol in processing the loan proposal through
the requisite departments. At no stage did the documents
submitted by the DSA appear forged or manipulated on the
face of them, thereby entitling the Petitioner to place the
matter before the Regional Credit Manager, Kolkata for
approval. If such conduct of the Petitioner is to be treated as
collusion with the customers, then, by necessary implication,
every officer of the departments through which the proposal
and its accompanying documents were routed for scrutiny
would also have to be implicated in the alleged fraud
13. Needless to say and it is expected that the officers of the
Bank shall discharge their duties, as would be required within
the protocol and norms of the Bank and have no scope to go
beyond that and in the process, if any fraud is committed
misleading the bank in submission of paper would be
attributed to the persons who played fraud with the Bank and
not the officer in duty until such officer is held responsible for
the entire transaction right from the acceptance of the
proposal, its scrutiny and disbursement of loan. From the
documents as discussed above, the Petitioner though is the
officer-in-charge of the Risk Contentment Unit has not dealt
with any paper concerning the scrutiny but has been taken care
of by different branches of the Bank including the Chartered
Accountant and none could find on its face any fraud to have
been committed in submission of the documents. The
procedure in the scrutiny of the Bank also gives no scope to
the Petitioner as the head of the Risk Contentment Unit to get
the document verified independent of the verification made by
the DSA save and except, the same is required to process the
loan proposal within the four walls of the Bank. The statement
of the witnesses such as, the head of Risk Contentment Unit
namely S.F. Rabindran, Mr. Sourbh Singh, the Joint General
Manager and Rahul Sinha, the National Credit Manager, Car
loans are matters of evidence and cannot per se indict the
conduct of the Petitioner to have not discharged his duties as
required under the norms of the Bank.
14. Prudence demands that when a document is verified by
multiple departments in a bank, responsibility for any failure
or fraud cannot be assigned to a single officer. The Bank's
internal procedure and policies distribute the duty of care
ensuring joint responsibility and accountability across the
verification chain.
15. The very purpose of the systems evolved in the Bank
for the internal check and balance suggest that the proposal
requires approval from multiple officials, ruling out thereby
that, as single employee can approve a transaction without
proper oversight. From the moment the loan proposal has
passed through, it amply creates a chain of command where
different levels of management share responsibility. Hence, in
cases of fraud involving fabricated loan documents, multiple
bank officials may be held accountable rather than the one
who handled the initial or last job.
16. When multiple people are responsible for a work and a
mistake occurs, it is always prudent to decide the liability
jointly or severally, vicarious liability and comparative
negligence. When a team or multiple people are collectively
responsible for a task, individual members cannot be held
solely accountable for mistakes. The concept is often referred
to as "shared responsibility". The principle holds that when
multiple parties work together on a subject, responsibility for
the outcome, both failure and success is distributed among all
involved, instead of finger pointing holding only one person
responsible, for that, a group's collective failure is often seen
as unfair. The overall takeaway is that holding a single person
accountable for a collective failure is not only unproductive
but unfair too.
17. The Hon'ble Apex Court in its decision in the matter of
State of Haryana and Ors. vs. Ch. Bhajanlal and Ors.
reported in 1992 Supp(1) SCC 335, has laid down the
following guidelines: -
"(1) Where the allegations made in the first
information report or the complaint, even if they
are taken at their face value and accepted in their
entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence
or make out a case against the accused.
(2) Where the allegations in the first information
report and other materials, if any, accompanying
the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence,
justifying an investigation by police officers under
Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order
of a Magistrate within the purview of Section
155(2) of the Code.
(3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in
the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in
support of the same do not disclose the
commission of any offence and make out a case
against the accused.
(4) Where, the allegations in the FIR do not
constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only
a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is
permitted by a police officer without an order of a
Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2)
of the Code.
(5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or
complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable
on the basis of which no prudent person can ever
reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient
ground for proceeding against the accused.
(6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in
any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned
Act (under which a criminal proceeding is
instituted) to the institution and continuance of the
proceedings and/or where there is a specific
provision in the Code or the concerned Act,
providing efficacious redress for the grievance of
the aggrieved party.
(7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly
attended with mala fide and/or where the
proceeding is maliciously instituted with an
ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the
accused and with a view to spite him due to private
and personal grudge."
18. Keeping in view the aforesaid decision as well as the
manner and process required for for processing loan proposals,
which necessarily pass through several branches of the Bank
and involve multiple officers in different stages of scrutiny,
the role of the Petitioner cannot, by any stretch, be isolated as
the cause for the alleged fraud. If every officer involved in the
process were to be held singularly responsible, it would lead to
chaos and defeat the very purpose of having layered scrutiny.
Since the Bank had appointed the DSA to initiate the loan
proposal upon prima facie verification of the documents, the
ultimate responsibility for the fraud lies with the DSA and the
conspirators, while bank officers can only be held responsible
upon substantial evidence showing their complicity, in a trial.
19. In the present, therefore, in absence of any role played
by the Petitioner solely and exclusively in the disbursement of
the loan, cannot be held responsible leaving aside a group of
officers, who too have the role in the scrutiny of the document
and as such, it would be not be prudent at this stage to ascribe
the liability on the Petitioner from out of the Officers in the
Bank to be one to have conspired or responsible for the fraud
committed with the Bank in isolation. The law as laid down in
State of Haryana vs. Bhajan Lal (supra), makes it clear that
where the uncontroverted allegations and materials collected
during investigation, even if accepted in entirety, do not
disclose the commission of any offence against the accused,
the criminal proceeding deserves to be quashed in exercise of
inherent jurisdiction. The proceeding, if any, therefore, has to
be quashed qua the Petitioner. However, it is made clear that
in the event of evidence laid before the court during trial, the
court is not precluded to bring the Petitioner on record by the
prescription of law enumerated in the relevant provision to
face the trial, provided substantial evidence to the exclusion of
all other officers is placed. Hence, ordered.
20. In view of the discussions made hereinabove, the
impugned orders passed by the learned S.D.J.M.,
Bhubaneswar taking cognizance in G.R. Case Nos. 3966 of
2006 (vide order dated 05.01.2007 arising out of Kharvelnagar
P.S. Case No. 282/06) and 3969 of 2006 (vide order dated
19.01.2007 arising out of Kharvelnagar P.S. Case No. 285/06),
so far as they relate to the present Petitioner, stand quashed.
21. In the result, both CRLMC Nos. 3115 and 3116 of 2008
are allowed.
(Chittaranjan Dash)
Judge
Bijay
Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA
