1. This petition has been preferred by the petitioner under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of the FIR No. 134/2017 registered at the Police Station Parbatsar, District Nagaur for the offences under Sections 420, 406, 467, 468 & 120-B of the IPC.
2. The brief facts of the case are that non-petitioner/respondent No. 2 Moti Ram lodged a criminal complaint under Section 156 (3) of the Cr.P.C. against Chukli Devi, Moola Ram, Ramniwas Raju and Harkaran for the offences under Sections 420, 406, 467, 468 and 120-B of the IPC. It is alleged that after the death of his grandfather, out of total land, 1/3rd share of land was mutated in the name of petitioner's father Jaggu Ram, three sons of Jaguu Ram including the respondent No. 2 got 1/3rd share in the said land. It is further alleged that the complainant is an unmarried and blind person whereas Jaggu Ram is an old man aged more than 90 years and he is mentally unstable, sick and infirm. As per the allegations, brother of the complainant Mr. Moola Ram hatched a conspiracy with other accused and got transfer of 1/3rd share of land in the name of his wife Smt. Chukli from Jaggu Ram by way of execution of registered sale deed dated 30.10.2014 for a consideration of Rs. 6.5 lacs. It is further alleged that remaining 2/3rd land was mortgaged at HDFC Bank, Kishangarh for which loan amounting to Rs. 8.5 lacs was availed by the accused in the name of Jaggu Ram. Police after registering the FIR, investigated into the matter and filed a charge sheet against co-accused Chukli, Raju Ram and Moola Ram under Sections 418, 420, 467, 468, 120-B & 197 of the IPC whereas investigation with respect to present petitioner was kept pending under Section 173 (8) of the Cr.P.C.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that registered sale deed for 1/3rd share of land was executed in the year 2014 by Jaggu Ram in favour of Smt. Chukli W/o Moola Ram whereas the loan application was submitted in the month of March 2015. He further submits that after making all inquiries from the Revenue Department and other sources, following due procedure for sanction, the loan was disbursed by the Bank. He further submits that there is a certificate issued by the Tehsildar as also a report of the Sarpanch of Panchayat concerned the loan was disbursed. The aforesaid FIR was registered in the Year 2017 for using undue influence to settle the family dispute by the respondent. He further submits that present petitioner is a bank employee and he worked in a good faith and sanctioned the loan after following the prescribed procedure for granting of loan. It is further submitted that the said loan amount was repaid on 04.06.2022 thus, the mortgage property was released by the bank. He further submits that dispute between Moti Ram-respondent No. 2 and Moola Ram and others is pending before the revenue authority and the same is not having any concerned with the present petitioner. Lastly, he submits that the allegations made by the complainant inter se with him and the other accused as there was no privity of contact between petitioner and respondent No. 2. Learned counsel submits that entire proceedings against present petitioner is abuse of process of law.
4. Learned Public Prosecutor as well as learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 have vehemently opposed the aforesaid contentions. It is submitted by them that the bank was aware of the fact that a revenue dispute regarding ancestral land was pending before the Revenue Court. The fact of the matter at hand is that both the witnesses i.e. Ramdev and Rameshwar were fake witnesses and they are not traceable till now on a given address. Learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 further submits that at the time of execution of registered sale deed, Jaggu Ram was more than 75 years of age, which is proved from the sale deed dated 30.10.2014 and also from his Voter ID Card but the same was deliberately avoided by the present petitioner-bank officer. He further submitted that during investigation, it has come to the notice that attestation and declaration was not deliberately performed by the present petitioner but he deliberately got the same done through Bhagchand, who was a temporary contractual employee at the relevant time. He further submitted that Jaguu Ram received ancestral land, during his lifetime, same was divided in equal proportionate between his three sons namely Narsa Ram, Moola Rama and Moti Ram. He further submitted that just to deprive the complainant-respondent No. 2 from his share, a conspiracy was hatched in connivance with the present petitioner and after filing of the present criminal case, the entire loan amount was repaid by Moola Ram and his family members which is not sufficient for quashing the FIR. He further submitted that whatever be the defence, the same can be produced before the trial court but by filing a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. FIR cannot be quashed qua the petitioner when police after investigation found that allegations are proved against him.
5. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for the respondent No. 2. Perused the material available on record.
6. On previous occasions S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No. 2771/2017 was filed by Smt. Chukli, Moola Ram, Ram Niwas and Raju Ram. Vide order dated 29.08.2017, the Coordinate Bench of this Court disposed of the aforesaid petition with a direction to submit representation before the Investigating Officer alongwith necessary documents. Another petition bearing S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No. 3852/2018 Chukli, Moola Ram and Raju Ram, which was also disposed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 18.05.2022 (Amended vide order dated 26.05.2022) on the basis of factual report in which offences under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 & 120B of the IPC against Chukli and Ors. were found proved by the Investigating Officer and a charge sheet was also filed against them in the court concerned.
7. If I peruse the First Information Report which was registered on a criminal complaint filed before the learned ACJM, Parbatsar, District Nagaur, wherein involvement of present petitioner was not alleged. The report as submitted by police further indicates that the SHO, Police Station Parbatsar has also proposed final closure report in the matter. After intervention of the superior officers, a verification of investigation was ordered by the Superintendent of Police, Nagaur wherein it was found that a revenue suit No. 90/2014 filed by the complainant-respondent No. 2 was pending before the Sub-Divisional Officer, Parbatsar for declaration, partition and injunction and during pendency of this suit both the transactions i.e. registration of sale deed dated 30.10.2014 in favour of Smt. Chukli W/o Moola Rama for transferring 1/3rd share of land i.e. 13 bighas by Jaggu Ram was executed and loan application for remaining part of land was submitted before the HDFC Bank wherein present petitioner was working. It was found that during lifetime of Jaggu Ram, he divided the land inherited by him in three equal shares to his three sons namely Moti Ram, Narsa Ram and Moola Ram and at the time of registration of sale deed these three sons of Jaggu Ram were in possession. Further it was found that after registry in favour of Smt. Chukli W/o Moola Ram, the matter of mutation was not filed before the Gram Sabha concerned despite the fact that the meeting of Gram Sabha was convened on three occasions before imposition of model code of conduct for such applications. Later, during model code of conduct, the mutation in favour of Smt. Chukli W/o Moola Ram was done and the certificate for remaining land was issued by the Tehsildar. On verification, it was found that if the matter relating to mutation in favour of Smt. Chukli or application of loan as submitted to the HDFC Bank were verified from Gram Sabha or Sarpanch then the entire game plan may be unfolded. Herein during verification, the closure report was not approved by the superior officer of police. Thus, the matter was not closed as proposed by the SHO, Police Station Parbatsar. Herein the investigation further indicates that the present petitioner who was working in the bank has sanctioned the loan and has not taken care of the fact that in registered sale deed dated 30.10.2014, the age of the Jaggu Ram (father of respondent No. 2 Moti Ram) was declared as 75 years and as alleged, the same was also mentioned in the Election Voter ID Card which was not taken on record though one of the document which was relied upon by the Bank was Aadhar Card and it is an admitted position that Aadhar Card cannot be made basis for determination of age of any individual. Herein one of the important factor in the matter is that two individuals namely Ramdev and Rameshwar were witnessed on declaration under Section 6(1) of the Rajasthan Agricultural Credit Operations (Removal of Difficulties) Act, 1974 but identity and whereabouts of these two witnesses are in serious doubt and till now they are not traceable on the addresses provided by them. Herein, the entire verification on behalf of the Bank is also being carried out by a contractual or temporary employee Mr. Bhagchand, who had deposed against the petitioner and supported the allegation of prosecution that at the behest of present petitioner, he performed the duties.
8. The fact of the matter is that registered sale deed for 1/3rd share of land was executed by Mr. Jaggu Ram, who was recorded land holder in the year 2014 and loan application for remaining land was filed in the year 2015 but the pendency of the revenue suit was within knowledge of the parties concerned who were benefiting from these transactions. It is duty of every bank employee to adopt process of due diligence before sanctioning any loan. Herein no such process or due diligence was adopted which could show bonafides on part of the petitioner. Otherwise also, it is an admitted fact that the age of Jaggu Ram at the time of his death was 90 years i.e. in the year 2018, therefore, if I calculate the age of Jaggu Ram on the basis of just for the year 2014-15 or 2015, the age of Jaggu Ram comes to more than 80 years at the time of execution of sale deed in favour of Smt. Chukli. Thus, whenever such fluid situation is there, extra caution in such matter where there is dispute between heirs or co-sharers, is required to be adopted. Though, there is not a single iota of evidence to such that Jaggu Ram was mentally unstable for execution of sale deed or execution of any document before the Bank but there are circumstances which suggest that Jaggu Ram was an old aged person. Moreover, the incidence of possession as claimed and found proved during investigation was not controverted.
9. After investigation in the matter, police has already drawn a conclusion that present petitioner is involved in the conspiracy with other persons and present petitioner was well aware about the facts and circumstances of the present case. According to the status report, the present petitioner in order to benefiting the other co-accused or individuals, dishonestly caused loss to the respondent No. 2-complainant and who also involved in falsification of document by obtaining signatures of individuals whose existence is not proved. Thus, offences under Sections 468, 477-A and 120-B of the IPC were found proved against the present petitioner.
10. The purpose of the 482 Cr.P.C. is inherent power i.e. to secure ends of justice, preventing the abuse of process and to make such orders as may be necessary to give effect to any other under the Code of Criminal Procedure, but it all depends upon the facts of a given case. It is also clear that the Court can always take note of any miscarriage of justice and preventing the same by exercising powers conferred upon it.
11. The judgment passed in a landmark case i.e. State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal reported in (1992) Supplementary (1) SCC 335, the Hon'ble Supreme Court considered in detail the provision of Section 482 Cr.P.C. and the power of High Court to quash the criminal proceedings or FIR. The Hon'ble Supreme Court not only summarized the legal position of law but has also laid down the guidelines to be followed by the High Courts while exercising their inherent powers to quash a criminal proceeding or FIR. This power has to be exercised carefully and with utmost caution and only when such exercise is justifiable by the test as specifically laid down under the provisions.
12. In view of the discussions and observations made herein above, there are sufficient reasons and grounds for proceeding against the present petitioner and as interim order dated 25.02.2019 passed by this Court is in favour of the present petitioner so he was not subjected to any coercive action. The report further indicates that sufficient opportunities were provided to the present petitioner for participation during investigation and also to put up his case during investigation. Thus, no interference is called for by this Court whilst exercising the inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Thus, the Misc. Petition is being devoid of merit and is hereby dismissed. The stay petition is also disposed of.
