- (1.) Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.
(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioners urges that ex facie from the allegations of the FIR, which indicate that the petitioners simply took loan from the society and out of the loan amount of Rs.60 lacs, the petitioners have repaid Rs.7 lacs, but they failed to repay the remaining amount. Thus, this is a case of partial repayment and hence, the offence under Section 420 IPC cannot be held to be made out against the petitioners.
(3.) Per contra, Mr. R.S. Kumpawat, learned counsel representing the complainant and the learned Public Prosecutor have vehemently opposed the submission advanced by learned counsel for the petitioners. Learned Public Prosecutor points out that as many as five more cases are pending against the petitioner Shwetang Joshi with almost identical allegations. In the case at hand, the petitioners fraudulently procured loan to the tune of Rs.60 lacs from the society never intending to repay the same. Out of the said loan amount, till date only a pittance of Rs.7 lacs has been repaid. Thus, they submit that the intention of the petitioners was to cheat the society right at the inception of the loan transaction. The argument advanced by learned counsel Mr. Menaria that the repayment of Rs.7 lacs has been made by the accused against the original loan amount is countered by learned Public Prosecutor with reference to the case diary. Learned Public Prosecutor pointed out that the people in whose names the loan files were submitted by the petitioner Shwetang Joshi have categorically stated to the Investigating Officer that they neither applied for the loan and nor did they receive any loan from the cooperative society. Hence, they implored the court to dismiss the miscellaneous petition.;