- (1.) INITIALLY this application had been filed for quashing of the first information report of R.C. Case No. 6(S)/2010A. H.D.R, registered under Section 120B read with Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 of the Indian Penal Code, against the petitioners. Subsequently, on submission of the charge sheet, when cognizance of the offences, as aforesaid, was taken against the petitioners vide order dated 01/02/2011, the said order has been challenged.
(2.) THE case of the C.B.I. is that one written complaint was filed by one Farukh Rashid Bokhari, the then Senior Manager, Allahabad Bank, Zonal Office, Ranchi, alleging therein that petitioner no. 1 Smt. Pushpa Singh, the Managing Director as well as the Directors namely, Saket Kumar Singh (Petitioner no. 2) and Abhijit Kanti Dam (Petitioner no. 3) of M/s Sai Healthways (Incorporation) Private Limited, entered into a conspiracy among themselves and with other persons and in furtherance of the said conspiracy they, on the basis of the forged and fabricated collateral security, induced Officers of Katrasgarh Branch of Allahabad Bank to sanction term loan of  Rs. 1,80,00,000/with cash credit limit of Rs. 15,00,000/. The loan was sanctioned for the purpose of purchasing hospital equipments and other allied assets. Further it has been alleged that the Managing Director and both the Directors got the title deeds of Guarantors / Mortgagors submitted to the Bank for getting the loan sanctioned. After the loan was sanctioned, the borrower company never care to deposit the installments as a result of which loan became sticky and, thereby, the Bank treated the loan and the interest of the amount of Rs. 2,26,93,794. 58/as well as the cash credit limit of Rs. 9,26,085.00/as NonPerforming Assets (NPA). Thus, it has been alleged that the accused persons committed offences under Section 120B read with Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioners as well as the Guarantors/Mortgagors. On such complaint, a case was registered by the CBI as R.C. Case No. 6(S)/2010A. H.D.R. The matter was taken up for investigation. During investigation it was found that the Company did default in repaying the loan amount. However, at the request of the borrowers repayment had been rescheduled but in spite of that, payment was not made. The bank was unable to realize the amount from the mortgaged properties as the sale deeds deposited by the borrowers/guarantors were found to be doctored, whereby actual acreage of purchased land was substantially inflated in the manner given below: SlNo. Name of themortgage and sale deed No. Inflated/DeFlated acreage of land shown in the deed Actual acreage of land as per the reportof CO Acreage ofland inflated to the extent of Remarks 1. Smt. PushpaSingh, 5947 dtd 31.08.06 5 acres 5 decimal 4 acres 95decimal Evidence has beencollected to prove that the rent receipt and mutation paper submitted by the borrower are forged and fabricated. 2. Smt. PushpaSingh 5975 dtd 01.09.2006 5 acres 5 acres - - - - - - Evidence has beencollected to prove that Land Possession Certificate submitted by the borrower is forged. That apart, Sh. Tirath Singh Chowdhary does not happen to be the mortgagor. The borrower used his name as guarantor. In addition to this opinion of Central Finger Print Bureau is awaited on the point. 3. Shri TirathSingh Choudhary 13898 dtd. 01.06.1970 10 acres 10 decimal 9.90 acres Evidence has beencollected to prove that Land Possession Certificate submitted by the borrower is forged. That apart, Sh. Tirath Singh Chowdhary does not happen to be the mortgagor. The borrower used his name as guarantor. In addition to this opinion of Central Finger Print Bureau is awaited on the point. 4. Shri SaketSingh, 5953/04 dtd. 29.09.04 5 acres 55.75 acres - - - - - Evidence has beencollected to prove that this plot of land is in legitimate possession of Kandu Majhi and 13 others and not in the possession of Bokaro Educational Society. Proof has also been brought on record to prove that the rent receipt and mutation certificate submitted by the borrowers are forged and fabricated. 5. Shri Dilip Kumar Gope2047/91 dtd. 06.03.1991 97decimals 97 decimals - - - - - - - Theland was disposed of much before the deed was submitted to the bank. It was purchased by Ashok Bhardwaj and Bhubhneshwar Jha. Land receipt and mutation certificate have also been found to be forged and fabricated. 6. Smt. BinuGowalin 834/71 dtd. 18.01.1971 1.16 acres 23 decimals 93 decimals The land was disposed ofmuch before the deed was submitted to the bank. It was purchased by Ashok Bhardwaj and Bhubhneshwar Jha. Land receipt and mutation certificate have also been found to be forged and fabricated. In that event, the CBI primafacie did find that the accused persons did commit offences, as have been alleged and, thereby, submitted charge sheet. Upon which cognizance of the offences, as aforesaid, was taken, which is under challenge. Mr. Anil Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that in the year 2007, the petitioners had obtained loan from Allahabad Bank, B.S. City Branch, Bokaro on depositing certain Title Deeds as collateral security. Subsequently, it was informed by the Bank Officials that there were some defects relating to the Title Deeds, which had been deposited as collateral security. The petitioners on 18/06/2010, submitted an application that they will be substituting those documents. Thereupon, on 27/07/2010, the petitioners submitted another set of documents as collateral security. Only thereafter, the instant F.I.R. was lodged on 25/08/2010. Thereby, it can be said that on the date when the F.I.R. was lodged, the documents, which were submitted as collateral security were in order and that after the F.I.R was lodged the petitioners did deposit all the amount, which was due to be paid to the Bank and in that event, No Dues Certificate, was issued by the Bank and the account got closed. Under this situation, the Bank is no more interested in prosecuting the case and hence, the order taking cognizance, in view of the decisions rendered in the case of ''Nikhil MerchantversusCentral Bureau of Investigation and Another [(2008) 9 SCC 677] '' and ''C.B.I.versusDunkans Agro Insustries Limited [(1996) 5 SCC 591] '', is fit to be quashed. In this regard, it was further submitted that the petitioners have already paid back a sum of Rs. 2.25 crores and, as such, question of wrongful gain or wrongful loss to the Bank does not arise. Further, it was submitted that only two deeds deposited, are directly attributable to the petitioners. But, as soon as the petitioners came to know that those deeds suffer from certain defects, the petitioners immediately filed an application for substituting those deeds and in that event, one can easily say that the petitioners had had no any mens ria to commit offence of forgery or cheating and, therefore, in such situation, if the petitioners are allowed to face the rigour of the trial, it would be abuse of the process of the Court and, therefore, the criminal proceeding against the petitioners be quashed by invoking power under Section 482 of the Code to prevent the miscarriage of justice
(3.) AS against this, learned counsel appearing for the CBI, by referring to the charge sheet, submits that the CBI during course of investigation did find that the accused persons by getting the sale deeds deposited by the gurantor secured the loan, which was never repaid. The said loan had been secured by making some manipulation in the sale deeds showing acreage of land more than what was there in actual and, thereby, the accused persons secured the loan by producing forged sale deeds. Therefore, the Court has rightly taken cognizance of the offences as aforesaid, which never warrants to be quashed even in a situation where the entire loan money has been repaid. In this connection learned counsel has referred to a decision rendered in a case of ''Central Bureau of InvestigationversusJagjit Singh [2014 (1) East Cr. Cases, 129 (SC)] '';