PRABHAKAR Vs. STATE OF DELHI NCT OF DELHI
LAWS(DLH)-2007-10-299
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Decided on October 24,2007

PARBHAKAR Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF DELHI NCT OF DELHI. Respondents

JUDGEMENT

- (1.) THE present petition has been filed under Section 482 Crpc, seeking quashing of complaint case, filed in the Court of Metropolitan Magistrate, new Delhi and consequential FIR No. 705/06 under various Sections of indian Penal Code with P. S. Sarita Vihar.
(2.) THE brief facts of the case, as per the allegations made in the complaint/ FIR, are that Vishwanatha Tantri (petitioner No. 3), Branch manager of the complainant company in October/november, 2000, recommended to the complainant company, house loan of Rs. 3 lacs of petitioner No. 1 and 2 as applicant and co-applicant for the purpose of construction of a house, situated at site No. 153, kh. No. 80/2a, H. L. No. 153, kothapur Village, Uttarhalli Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk, Bangalore. It was induced by petitioner No. 1 that the property in question stands in his name. On the assurances given by petitioners 1 and 2 that they have good title over the property and it was a good mortgage, the head office asked the branch Manager to get executed the relevant documents by them. Accordingly, the documents were executed and petitioner No. 3 was the guarantor to the loan agreement. The complainant company from Delhi sanctioned and disbursed the loan amount of Rs. 3 lacs. The petitioner No. 1 and 2 had to pay monthly EMI for 15 years but they did not pay the same for more than 2 years.
(3.) IN the midst of 2003, the complainant started scrutinizing its portfolio with ICICI and to the utter shock and surprise of the complainant company, the extent of illegalities and forgeries and fraud committed by the accused, which started unearthing were beyond imagination. In the instant case, the property in question has been taken over by the Government and there exist water tank on the said land. The petitioners 1 and 2 never disclosed this fact to the complainant despite the fact that they mortgaged the same land to the complainant company and thus the present petitioners had dishonest intention from the very beginning for committing the alleged offences;;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.