Disposed

Neetu v. State and Ors.

Rajasthan HC13 Jul 2017CRLMP/2414/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Court dismissed petitions to quash FIR regarding alleged bank fraud. Held that large scale fraud requires extensive investigation. Granted liberty to petitioners for five weeks to submit representation to Investigating Officer regarding exoneration.

What did the court decide?

Liberty granted to submit representations to I.O. within 4 weeks; notice of 15 days to be given before arrest if sought.

Neetu Vs State and Ors. — Quashing and FIR | Rajasthan HC (2017)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶2

S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 2086 / 2016

¶3

Kirti Bordiya W/o Shri Ravindra Bordiya, Resident of Bhilwara, Director of Bhilwara Mahila Urban Co-operative Bank Ltd., Bhilwara, Rajasthan.

¶4

----Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

State of Rajasthan.

¶7

Kanhaiya Lal Keer S/o Shri Moti Lal Keer, by caste Keer, Resident of Gadarmala, Tehsil & District Bhilwara.

¶8

----Respondents

¶9

S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 2414 / 2016 Neetu Pipara w/o Shri Rakesh Pipara, R/o 33, Shivaji Marg, Sanganer road, District – Bhilwara (Raj.)

¶10

----Petitioner

¶11

Versus

¶12

State of Rajasthan.

¶13

Kanhaiya Lal Keer S/o Shri Motilal Keer, R/o Gadarmala Tehsil and District Bhilwara (Raj.).

¶14

Tonya Keer w/o Kanhaiya Lal Keer R/o Gadarmala Tehsil and District Bhilwara (Raj.).

¶15

----Respondents

¶16

For Petitioner(s) : Mr.Ramesh Purohit & Mr.PC Purohit.

¶17

For Respondent(s) : Mr.OP Rathi, PP assisted by Mr.Narayan Singh Chauhan, SI, Kotwali, Bhilwara.

¶18

For Complainant : Mr.ML Vishnoi.

¶19

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MEHTA

¶20

Judgment / Order

¶21

13/07/2017

¶22

By way of these misc. petitions, the petitioners seek to quash the FIR No.111/2016 registered at P.S. Kotwali, Bhilwara.

¶23

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Public

¶24

Prosecutor as well as learned counsel for the complainant. Perused

¶25

(2 of 3)

¶26

the material available on record.

¶27

Learned counsel for the petitioners vehemently contend that the petitioner Kirti Bordiya was Chairman and petitioner Neetu Pipara was Director of the Bank and thus, they both had no direct or active role to play in the alleged fraudulent transaction. The loan file was passed by the committee and thereafter, the petitioners came into picture. They thus urged that the impugned FIR deserves to be quashed qua the petitioners.

¶28

Learned Public Prosecutor as well as learned counsel for the complainant oppose the submissions advanced by the petitioners’ counsel.

¶29

I have heard the arguments advanced at the Bar and have gone through the material available on record.

¶30

The case involves a large scale fraud with the society in as much as, huge loan of Rs.75 lakhs was allegedly sanctioned and fraudulently passed in favour of the first informant Kanhaiya Lal who is said to be a poor hand to mouth landless person. The matter is presently being investigated by S.O.G. It is clearly alleged in the FIR that the husband of the petitioner Kirti Bordia namely, Ravindra Bordia, C.A., was the financial advisor of the Bank.

¶31

In this background, I am of the opinion that the matter requires extensive investigation and no case for interference is made out in the impugned FIR while exercising inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. If at all, the petitioners have a cause that they are being falsely implicated, then they would be better

¶32

(3 of 3)

¶33

advised to submit a representation to the I.O. who shall be under an obligation to consider the grounds of exoneration raised by the petitioners, if any.

¶34

Thus, the petitioners are given liberty to submit their representations to the I.O. concerned within a period of four weeks from today. It is expected that the I.O. shall conduct thorough investigation into the representations of the petitioners and if thereafer, arrest of the petitioners is sought, the I.O. shall give fifteen days' notice to them.

¶35

The instant misc. petitions are accordingly disposed of at this stage with the above directions.

¶36

A copy of this order be placed in both the files.

¶37

(SANDEEP MEHTA)J.

¶38

S.Phophaliya/-

Neetu v. State and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Neetu v. State and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Lrs of Bhanwar Lal and Ors. Vs Mohan Lal and Ors.

State Vs Sher Mohd.

Sadin Khan @ Seena Vs State

Saraswati Kanya Mahavidhalaya Vs State of Raj. and Ors.

Rajendra Purohit Vs State and Ors.

Dinesh @ Fufaa Vs State