SRIKANTA PAUL Vs. STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR REPRESENTED BY INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE
HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI
State Of Assam And Anr Represented By Inspector General Of Police
Click here to view full judgement.
Mir Alfaz Ali, J. -
(1.) This application under Section 482 CrPC has been filed for quashing the FIR dated 30.01.2017 and the proceeding in BI(EO) Case No. 6/2017 under section 120B/120/468 IPC.
(2.) Learned Sr. Counsel Mr. D. Das, assisted by learned counsel Mr. S. Chamaria for the petitioner and Mr. D. Das, learned Addl. P.P., Assam as well as learned counsel Mr. H. Rahman for the respondents were heard.
(3.) Learned Sr. Counsel Mr. D. Das submitted that the respondent, proprietor of M/s Steel & Grip, Chabua, availed a cash credit limit (CCL) loan to the tune of Rs. 5.7 lakhs and term loan of Rs. 11.90 lakhs from the United Bank of India, Chabua Branch. Subsequently, the said CCL loan was enhanced from time to time. However, the respondent No. 2 became a defaulter for not making timely repayment of installments against the loan availed by him, and as such the bank filed an O.A. case before the Debt Recovery Tribunal (DRT), Guwahati, which was registered as O.A. No. 74/2012. In the said case, the respondent No. 2 also raised counter claim and the DRT, by judgment and order dated 14.07.2016 allowed the O.A. preferred by the bank and dismissed the counter claim of the respondent No. 2. Against the judgment of the DRT, the respondent No. 2 preferred an appeal before the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Kolkata, which was also dismissed and having failed in the civil litigation, the instant FIR was lodged with the ulterior motive to obstruct the bank from realizing the money as per the judgment of the DRT as well as the Appellate Tribunal. It was also submitted that the allegations made in the FIR, were more or less pertaining to deficiency of service and all those allegations were made before the DRT and the learned Tribunal rejected the same. Having failed to succeed in the civil litigation, the present FIR was filed, with malafide intention only to harass the bank employees and to obstruct execution of the order passed by the DRT. Mr. Das, learned Sr. Counsel further submits, that the FIR does not disclose any cognizable offence and the allegations made in the FIR, at best could make out a case of deficiency of service, which does not attract criminal liability and as such, prayed for quashing the FIR as well as the proceeding arising therefrom, placing reliance on the celebrated decision of the Apex Court in State of Haryana Vs. Bhajanlal, 1992 Supp1 SCC 335.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.