Full Judgment
1. This is an application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure praying for quashing of the proceedings arising out of Bidhannagar Police Station (south)Case No. 80/2006 dated 30.8.06 under Section 471/468/420/120B/34 of Indian Penal Code pending in the Court of Learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bidhannagar being G.R. No. 419/2006. The case of the prosecution, in short, is that the Senior Manager, Canara Bank, Salt Lake, Kolkata lodged a complaint with Officer-in-Charge, Bidhannagar Police Station (south), Salt Lake, Kolkata alleging that housing loan was sanctioned and disbursed to six purchasers of the residential flats in respect of one multistoried building situated at 169, Motilal Colony, near Airport Gate No. 2 Dum Dum, Kolkata. The flats were promoted by M/S. S.P. Construction, a partnership firm, at joint venture with the owner of the land Mrs. Reba Basu wife of Late Chitta Ranjan Basu. It has been alleged that the loan amounting to Rs. 39,94,923.00 was sanctioned to the six purchasers. Pre-sanction inspection was held and on 13.02.2006 the sanctioned loan was disbursed to all six borrowers. The registration of conveyance/Sale Deed of six borrowers were completed with the office of Registrar of Assurance Kolkata-1. Although the flats were ready for occupation, the borrowers did not take possession of those flats. Mrs. Reba Basu, on being contacted denied the execution of the conveyance deed in favour of any of the six borrowers. It has been further alleged that in course of further enquiry the bank authority detected that the conveyance deeds executed on 13.02.06 in favour of the six borrowers were made by the persons other than true promoter and true owner of the land. It has been alleged that six borrowers availed themselves of the loan by way of cheating, false representation and committed fraud in connivance with others. It has been alleged that the role of partners of the promoter company was not free from suspicion. Upon receipt of the complaint, the Bidhannagar Police Station (south) Case No. 80 of 2006 dated 30.08.2006 was registered under Sections 471/468/420/120B/34 of Indian Penal Code.
2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is not amongst the six borrowers who took loan from the bank. It is contended that the petitioner herein is not named in the FIR and he had no role to play in the matter sanction of the loan in favour of six borrowers. It is further contended that before sanctioning the loan amount, enquiry was conducted by the bank. It is contended that there is no material against the petitioner herein. It is further submitted that the recovery of loan is a civil liability for which the specific statute for recovery of the loan is there. The learned counsel has referred to and cited the decisions reported in 2005 CRI L.J. 729 [Girish Sarwate, vs. State of A.P.] ; (2006)6 SCC 669 [Ram Biraji Devi & Anr. vs. Umesh Kumar Singh & Anr.]
3. Learned counsel appearing for the state produces the CD and submits that the complainant is the co-accused and he is in collusion with the other accused persons in the matter of sanctioning and disbursing loan in favour of the six borrowers. It is contended that in the matter of execution and registration of deed of conveyance there was impersonation. The learned counsel submits that the petitioner herein is a person who brought the six borrowers and also played a role in the matter of disbursement and execution / registration of the deed of conveyance. It is contended that involvement of the petitioner is clear from the statement of the witnesses recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C.
4. I have gone through the materials appearing in the CD. In the statements of witnesses it has been categorically stated that this petitioner played a role in the matter of execution and registration of the deed of conveyance. It has been alleged that the landlord Mrs. Reba Basu denied the execution of deed of conveyance in favour of the six borrowers. It has further been alleged that the execution of the deed was made by the persons other than the true promoter and true owner of the land. Under such circumstances the decisions cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner will not come in the aid of his contention.
5. Considering the materials appearing in the CD I find that all the circumstances as alleged by the prosecution are disputed questions of fact which can be decided upon full trial. In view of the materials appearing in the CD I find that it is not a fit case for quashing of the proceedings.
6. The application under section 482 of the Cr. P.C., therefore, stands dismissed.
7. Let a copy of this order be sent to the Learned Court below immediately.
8. Urgent Photostat certified copy, if applied for, be handed over to the parties as early as possible.