Criminal Misc. No.M-32810 of 2009 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Misc. No.M-32810 of 2009 Date of decision : 23.11.2009 Mrs. Deepmala and others ....Petitioners Versus Union Territory, Chandigarh ...Respondent **** CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. D. ANAND Present: Mr. G.C.Bedi, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. P.I.P.Singh, Advocate for the respondent. Mr. Banni Thomas, Advocate for the Corporation Bank. S. D. ANAND, J. In this case, the following order was recorded by this Court at the time of motion hearing:- “In order to prove the bona fides of the petitioners, the learned counsel for the petitioners states that the petitioners would deposit a sum of Rs. 10 lacs within 15 days from today and the balance installment-wise dues within the further 20 days thereafter.” The complainant bank has filed the reply which is taken on record. Mr. Bani Thomas, Advocate has entered appearance on behalf of the Corporation Bank which has not otherwise been impleaded as a party. He just informs the Court where the misadventure attributed to the petitioners is not the only instance of the type and that the petitioners and their associates/husbands etc. had also cheated various others banks in the like manner. Learned counsel for the petitioners was called upon to indicate Criminal Misc. No.M-32810 of 2009 -2- whether he would like to consider the advisability of impleading the Corporation Bank as a party-respondent. The response is in the negative. As would be apparent from a perusal of the motion order, the petitioners had held out an assurance that they would deposit the indicated amount within time limit indicated in the motion order itself. No interim relief was granted to the petitioners while adjourning the case on 20.11.2009 to today. The learned counsel, appearing on behalf of the petitioners, insists that petition may be disposed of on merits today itself, particularly when a reply to the petition has been filed today by the complainant-bank. The prosecution allegations against the petitioners are as under:- The husband of petitioner No.1-Deepmala and petitioner No.2-Amandeep Kaur and principal of petitioner no.3 raised a huge amount of loan from the Kotak Mahindera Bank ltd. Besides the personal guarantee furnished by the petitioners herein, three properties (one situated on Rangia Road, Kharar, another situated in Swaraj Nagar and yet another sitauted at Morinda Raod) were mortgaged by the (principals of the) petitioners for securing that loan. Out of those, equitable mortgages were created in respect of first two items of properties; while a registered mortgage deed was executed in respect of property situated at Morinda. The principals of the petitioner paid few installments of loan but they are presently in arrears to the extent of eight installments. First Information Report came to be lodged against the petitioners herein on an allegation that they had committed defalcation by having mortgaged the property at Rangia Road, Kharar which had already been sold by Jaswinder Singh, an Uncle of petitioners no.2 and 3. It transpired during the investigation that the property situated at Swaraj Criminal Misc. No.M-32810 of 2009 -3- Nagar has been sold subsequently. It is only the property at Morinda which is intact. The property at Swaraj Nagar was sold to none else or other than mother-in-law of petitioner no.1. In the FIR, petitioner no.1, her husband and father-in-law are also arrayed as an accused, besides petitioners No.2 and 3. Learned counsel, appearing on behalf of the petitioners, argues that the petitioners ought to get interim protection in view of the fact that they are females and further because the property at Morinda is still intact and the sale proceeds thereof would enable the complainant bank to recover a substantial part of the arrears of amount. It is also argued that the dispute is of civil nature and it had been given the colour of criminal nature in a malafide manner. Learned counsel, appearing on behalf of the respondents argue that the petitioners and their husbands etc. form a group which has been defrauding the various banks in a similar fashion by collectively raising a loan. In the present case too, the arguments proceeds it was a case of collective raising of a loan. It is also argued that the petitioners had produced before the police a forged copy of the revenue record which did not indicate that the mortgaged property situated at Rangia Road, Kharar, had already been sold off. It is also pointed out the the property situated at Morinda could be sufficient to recover only a very small fraction of the due amount which presently runs into more than two crores. In the circumstances of the case, It is apparent that the petitioners have not been able to make out a case for the use of extra-ordinary jurisdiction vested in this Court under Section 438 Cr.P.C. Dismissed. November 23, 2009 (S. D. ANAND) Pka JUDGE