This order dismisses an application under Section 482 CrPC seeking quashing of criminal proceedings for cheating and forgery arising from a bank loan dispute. The court held that prima facie cognizable offences were disclosed.
Application under Section 482 CrPC for quashing of proceedings in Case No. 83 of 2020 is dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 84
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 9019 of 2022
Applicant :- Ram Ruchi Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Udai Prakash Deo Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Sameer Jain,J.
Heard Sri Udai Prakash Deo Pandey, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Jhamman Ram, learned AGA for the State and perused the record of the case.
By way of present application, applicant made a prayer to quash the proceedings of Case No. 83 of 2020 arising out of Case Crime No. 345 of 2018 (State Vs. Javed Khan and others), under Sections 406, 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC, Police Station Robertsganj, District Sonbhadra pending in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sonbhdra.
Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that applicant has been made accused in the present matter by the Bank Manger on totally false and frivolous allegation. He further submitted that admittedly, applicant took loan from the Bank but, FIR of the present case was lodged by the Manager of the Bank i.e. opposite party no.2 in the year 2018 with the allegation that at the time of taking loan, applicant clearly stated that his property is clean and he never transferred his property to anyone but, later on it reveals that the property of applicant, on which, loan was taken by him, way back in the year 1967 transferred to some other person by way of sale deed. He further submitted that in the year 1967, applicant was minor, therefore, no question arise that he executed sale deed to any other person. He further submitted that applicant is ready to pay the loan, which he had taken from the Bank. He further submitted that neither the applicant was intended to cheat the Bank nor he in any way duped the Bank, therefore, charge-sheet submitted against the applicant is bad.
Per contra, learned AGA submitted that admittedly applicant took loan from the Bank against the property and as per the FIR at the time of taking loan, he specifically stated to the Bank that his property is in his name and it was not transferred to any other person but, later on it reveals that his property has been transferred to other person way back in the year 1967 and record of the case shows that applicant took loan on the basis of wrong assertion made before the Bank that his property is clear
and till date he is the sole owner of the property and he never transferred the property to anyone, therefore, charge-sheet rightly submitted against the applicant.
I have heard both the parties and perused the record of the case.
Record of the case shows that opposite party no.2, the Bank Manager, lodged FIR against four persons including the applicant. As per the FIR, applicant took loan from the Bank in the year 2014 against his property and at the time of taking loan, applicant specifically mentioned that his property was neither transferred to anyone nor any agreement to sale was executed in favour of any person but, later on it reveals that his property was already transferred in the year 1967 to one Banveer Bahadur @ Nama Singh and FIR further shows that some civil suit is also pending in this regard, therefore, prima facie from the perusal of the FIR and statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., it is apparent that at the time when the loan was taken by the applicant from the Bank against his property then, his property already transferred to third party way back in the year 1967, therefore, at this stage, it cannot be said that applicant neither committed any cheating nor any fraud as, prima facie FIR and other documents on record discloses cognizable offence under Sections 406, 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC against the applicant, therefore, neither charge-sheet nor proceedings pending against the applicant can be quashed.
Accordingly, the present application is dismissed.
Order Date :- 12.7.2022 AK Pandey
Digitally signed by ANUPAM KUMAR PANDEY Date: 2022.07.15 10:53:10 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the quashing application under Section 482 CrPC regarding alleged cheating in a bank loan case involving transfer of property should be allowed.
Whether the prima facie evidence of prima facie fraud and cheating from the FIR and Statement under Section 161 CrPC justifies the continuation of criminal proceedings.
If applicant’s claim that property was transferred in 1967 when he was a minor negates the charges of cheating and fraud.
3 provisions across 2 enactments
Ram Ruchi
Sameer Jain
Anupam Kumar Pandey
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
