Pravin Dashrath Sawnt v. The State of Maharashtra & Vikas Sitaram Bankar

1. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith and the matter heard is finally with the consent of parties.

2. The Petitioner has filed the present Petition to quash/set aside the impugned FIR no. 73 of 2019 registered under Section 420 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860. By an order dated 4th February 2020, this Court had granted interim protection to the Petitioner, directing that while the investigation will continue, no charge-sheet shall be filed.

3. We have heard Mr. P. K. Shahane, learned counsel for the Petitioner and Mr. S. V. Gavand, learned APP for Respondent No.1. The facts in a nutshell are as follows:a. In or about September 2014, the Petitioner was appointed as a Credit Manager with Aspire Home Finance Company Ltd, now known as Motilal Oswal Home Finance Ltd. He was stationed at the Head Office. His role was to examine the credit record of the borrowers by analyzing salary slip, ITR, existing loan and profile of customer, CIBIL record etc. The loan application / proposal is initially recommended by the Branch Credit Officer, Branch Manager and Cluster Manager and thereafter the application is sent electronically to the Head Office Credit Department. The credit analysis would be carried out by the Petitioner on the online portal of the company. If the conditions were satisfied, the credit department would approve the proposal and thereafter the loan would be disbursed by another department through the online system called OMNIFIIN. b. On 22nd December 2017, the Petitioner resigned from the company for better prospects. His arrears of salary were not paid to him, which resulted in him filing complaints against the company. An NC No. 549 of 2018 was registered by the Dadar Police Station for his unpaid salary dues. c. In 2019, a complaint for cheating was filed by Respondent No.2 (original informant) against the Petitioner. This resulted in the registration of the impugned FIR against the Petitioner along with two other accused.

4. We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and perused the documents on record. The impugned FIR, inter alia, records the following:

(i) In 2015, loan was disbursed to one Narsingh Babanrao Jadhav and

Kalpana Narsingh Jadhav for purchase of property situated at Room NO. 15, Patil Chawl, Tirupati Nagar, Mahakali Caves Road, Andheri (East). Upon default by the borrowers, officials of Respondent No. 2 visited the property and found it to be a chawl/slum. There is no provision for granting a housing loan for purchase of unit in a chawl or slum. The borrowers were not residing at the property, and had sold the unit to one Navkumar Das, who refused to produce the property documents to Respondent No. 2. The borrowers had not executed mortgage deed to secure the loan; and

(ii) The Petitioner as the Credit Head, was involved in the loan approval process. He along with the co-accused Ajit Singh and Sudhir Memon both Branch Managers had abused their official position to sanction the loan. The internal inquiry revealed that they acted in an illegal manner and cheated the company into disbursing the loan of Rs. 10,39,885/-.

5. From the above, we find that the FIR clearly discloses the Petitioner’s involvement in the loan transaction. At this stage, we cannot embark upon an inquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the FIR/complaint. It is well settled law as is held in the case of Neeharika Infrastructure Private Limited vs. State of Maharashtra [(2021) 19 SCC 401] that while exercising jurisdiction under Section 482, High Court will not get into the merits of the FIR. At this stage, the Court will not conduct a mini trial. What is required to be considered is the nature of accusations and allegations in the FIR and whether the averments/allegations in the FIR prima facie disclose the commission of the cognizable offence or not. It is only in exceptional cases where the allegations are so absurd and does not disclose any offence that courts can interfere. This case does not fall within the exception as is sought to be propounded by Mr. Shahane.

6. We also find that the credit appraisal memo annexed at page 28 of the petition records that the Petitioner’s role as one of the persons involved in the loan approval process. Mr. Shahane attempted to distance the Petitioner from the credit appraisal memo by submitting that the approval was subject to legal and technical report of the property, which was the work of another department. We are unable to accept this contention. This is a question of fact and a matter of investigation. All this will have to be adjudicated by the Trial Court. Equally his submission that the Petitioner is not the beneficiary of any amounts is of no consequence at this stage.

7. The Petitioner has filed written submissions and has relied upon the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal and Others [AIR 1992 SC 604] and Inder Mohan Goswami Vs. State of Uttaranchal and others [MANU/SC/7999/2007] and order dated 7th June, 2023 passed by the Division Bench of this Court [Coram: Nitin

8. We find that none of the above judgments are of assistance to the Petitioner. The judgments in Bhajan Lal (supra) and Inder Mohan Goswami (supra) lay down the well-established principles of when the Court can interfere under Section 482 of the CrPC and Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The order of the Division of this Court is of no assistance, as the facts therein were entirely different. Paragraph 6 of the said order records that the petitioner in that case was in no way connected with the sanction of the loan and that the petitioner was inadvertently added to the FIR. That is not so here since the Petitioner was admittedly involved in the loan approval process.

9. For the above reasons, this Petition is dismissed. The protection granted on 4th February, 2020 stands vacated. Rule is discharged. There shall be no order as to costs. [ GAUTAM A. ANKHAD, J.] [RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.]