Full Judgment
CRM not M-29198 of 2012 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH (135) CRM not M-29198 of 2012 (O&M) Date of decision:
10. 07.2013.
Nemat Ram Batra ......Petitioner Versus Virender Kumar Batra and others .......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr.Rohit Ahuja, Advocate for the petitioner.
**** SABINA, J.
Petitioner has filed this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short Cr.P.C.) challenging the order dated 01.05.2012 (Annexure P-7) and 21.02.2011 (Annexure P-6).After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner, I am of the opinion that the instant petition deserves dismissal.
Petitioner had filed criminal complaint against the respondents under Sections 406, 408, 418, 420, 420, 422, 424, 468, 469 and 120-B, of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 after the matter was referred to the Police for investigation and after thorough investigation, cancellation report was submitted.
Thereafter, in the year 2006, FIR was registered against the respondents but in the said case, cancellation report was prepared.
Against the said CRM not M-29198 of 2012 (O&M) -2- cancellation report, petitioner preferred protest petition.
The Trial Court vide impugned order dated 21.02.2011 (Annexure P-6) while dismissing the complaint has observed as under:- “I have considered the contentions of learned counsel for complainant and cancellation report has also been perused by me thoroughly.
The police had taken in possession all the documents of loan amount which shows that there is no cutting or alteration in the guarantee deed and other documents and on all the documents Mark A to Mark H, the amount of loan has been mentioned as Rs.10 Lacs.
The complainant had consciously signed those documents which means that he had agreed that he is standing accounted for cash credit limit of Rs.10 Lacs extended to accused No.1.
Although as per document Ex.CW1/A Scheme for financing of retail tradeRs.the maximum limit to extend cash credit facility to small and medium traders was Rs.5 Lacs whereas the bank had extended CC limit to the accused No.1 to the tune of Rs.10 Lacs but this document Ex.CW1/A is only an internal circular of the bank and is not a statute.
This may amount to irregularity committed by bank officials but on this ground, the extension of CC limit facility of Rs.10 Lacs to accused No.1 cannot be held to be result of fraud.
Accused No.2 and 3 may have committed irregularities but there is no evidence that they have committed any fraud with the complainant.
The complainant had signed all the documents and tendered his title deed with the bank for release of CC limit of Rs.10 Lacs to his son accused No.1 and not he cannot say that the CC limit was for an amount of Rs.5 Lacs only.
No doubt, his signatures were taken on documents on 22.12.2001 whereas CC limit was CRM not M-29198 of 2012 (O&M) -3- sanctioned on 12.12.2001 but this itself also does not show that the fraud was committed on the complainant or documents were forged.
In normal course, guarantee deed etc.are prepared after sanction of the loan and there was no so much delay in getting the guarantee deed signed from the complainant by the bank officials.
The complainant is a retired official and it is not expected from him to sign unfilled or blank forMs.There is no condition in the cas credit limit account that the amount from the said cash credit limit can be used for purchase of stocks and machinery etc.only and not for other purposes.
The bank have extended cash credit limit to accused No.1 and he was at liberty to utilise the funds within the said limit.
It appears that there was a dispute regarding property between complainant and accused No.1 and accused No.1 son of the complainant had failed to repay the loan amount, which was sanctioned in his favour against guarantee of complainant and as the bank had failed a suit for recovery against them, complainant has filed the present complaint to put pressure on the officials of the bank.
However, neither any offence of fraud or forgery not any offence of conspiracy is made out against the accused persons.”
Aggrieved against the said order, petitioner preferred a revision petition.
The learned Additional Sessions Judge, while dismissing the revision has observed as under:- “On perusal of the judicial file, I find that when the then learned ACJ.has sent the present case for report under Section 202 Cr.P.C., then the case was registered but after registeration of the case the cancellation report was submitted by the Investigating CRM not M-29198 of 2012 (O&M) -4- Officer.
The cancellation report was prepared on the ground that the allegations made by the complainant in the complaint were found false after investigation.
Thereafter, protest petition was filed and the evidence of the complainant was got recorded by the then learned ACJM.
On perusal of the documents mark 'A' to mark 'H', it appears that amount of loan has been mentioned as Rs.10 lacs.
There are signatures of the complainant on all those documents, which show that he had agreed that he is standing accounted for cash credit limit of Rs.10 lacs extended to the accused No.1.
It is rightly held by the then learned ACJ.that as per document Ex.CW1/A scheme for financing of retail tradeRs.the maximum limit to extend cash credit limit to the accused No.1 to the tune of Rs.10 lacs but this document Ex.
CW1/A is only an internal circular of the bank and is not a statute.
It does not show that the accused have committed fraud with the complainant.
The complainant tendered his title deed with the bank for release of cash credit limit of Rs.10 lacs to his son accused No.1.
Now, it does not lie in the mouth of the complainant to say that cash credit limit was for an amount of Rs.5 lacs only.
There is no condition in the cash credit limit account that the amount from the said cash credit limit can be used for the purpose of stocks and machinery etc.only and not for other purposes.
The bank has extended the cash credit limit to the accused No.1 and he was at liberty to utilize the funds within the said limit.
The learned trial court has rightly held that from the oral as well as documentary evidence, it appears that there was a dispute regarding the property between the complainant and the accused No.1 and the accused No.1 son of the complainant had failed to repay the loan amount, which was sanctioned in CRM not M-29198 of 2012 (O&M) -5- his favour against the guarantee of complainant and as the bank had filed a suit for recovery against them, the complainant has filed the present complaint to put pressure on the officials of the bank.
Therefore, offence of fraud or forgery is not made out against the above named accused.
There is no evidence on the file to show that the above named accused hatched a conspiracy with one another in order to cheat the complainant.”
The reasons given by the Courts below while dismissing the complaint filed by the petitioner are sound reasons.
It is a settled proposition of law that the petitioner cannot invoke jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C.after dismissal of his revision by the Sessions Court as it would amount to a second revision.
However, in a case of grave injustice, this Court can interfere under Section 482 Cr.P.C.In the present case, no grave miscarriage of justice has occurred which would warrant interference by this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C.Hence, no ground for interference is made out.
Dismissed.
(SABINA) JUDGE July 10, 2013 sandeep sethi