HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : BENCH AT INDORE (DIVISION BENCH : HON. JUSTICE S.K.SETH AND HON. JUSTICE M.C.GARG) MISC. CRIMINAL CASE NO. 121 of 2005 Rameshwar Patel and others ... Applicants Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and others. ... Respondents -x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x- J U D G M E N T (Delivered on 24 November, 2011) This order shall also govern the disposal of M.Cr.C. No. 122 of 2005-Ratanlal Chouhan and others v. State as both these matters involve common questions of fact and law. For the sake of convenience, we have noted relevant facts from the above petition. 2. In this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (‘the Code’ for short) applicants are assailing the report of the Special Police Establishment in relation to Crime No. 151/2002 registered against them under Sections 13(1)(d)/13(2); 15 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 r/w Sections 406,409,418 420 and 120-B of the Penal Code. 3. During the relevant period, applicants in the present petition were the Office-bearer of Indore Premiere Co-operative Bank Limited-- a co- operative society duly registered under the M.P. Co-operative Societies Act, 1960. A complaint was filed with the S.P. Special Police Establishment, Indore alleging that applicants were involved in loan scam and thereby committed criminal misdemeanor. It was said that applicants as the office-bearer of the said Co-operative Bank, conspired together in disbursement of various amount of loans to undeserving and ineligible person and thereby committed criminal breach of public trust, cheating punishable under the Penal Code and other related offences punishable under provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. After the enquiry/investigation, the S.P. Special Police Establishment submitted detail report finding prima-facie substance in the complaint. Based on it, a notice to show cause against the proposed action u/s. 19(C) of the Co- operative Societies Act was issued to them along with the aforesaid report. This led to filing of present petition seeking quashment of the report. 4. We have heard rival submissions at length. Record perused. 5. Learned counsel for applicants referring to provisions of M.P. Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 and Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 submitted that no case is made out against applicants to set the criminal law in motion for their prosecution as they have not committed any criminal offence; applicants were not ‘public servants’ and their prosecution is unsustainable and unwarranted both in law and fact. Criminal prosecution, therefore, 2 2 is nothing but abuse of process of law as such report is liable to be quashed. He referred to following decisions:- Ajay Mitra v. State of M.P.–AIR 2003 S.C. 1069; Abdulla Mohd. Pagarkar v. State-AIR 1980 S.C.499; State of M.P. v. Hari Mohan Khemka- 1976 MPLJ 281; S.N.Palanitkar v. State of Bihar-AIR 2001 SC 2960; G.Sagr Suri v. State of U.P.-(2000) 2 SCC 636; Arun Kumar Sharma v. UT Chandigarh-(2005) 11 SCC 480; Vir Prakash Sharma v. Anil Kumar Agarwal-(2007) 7 SCC 373; S.K.Alagh v. State of U.P.-(2008) 5 SCC 662; Maksud Saiyed v. State of Gujrat-(2008) 5 SCC 668. State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal- AIR 1992 SC 604. 6. Refuting arguments, learned counsel for respondents submitted that no case is made out to exercise extra ordinary power conferred by Section 482 of the Code. The exercise of jurisdiction under the inherent powers as envisaged in Section 482 of the Code to have the complaint or the charge sheet quashed is an exception rather than rule and the case for quashing at the initial stage must be treated a rarest of rare case so as not to scuttle the prosecution unless a clear case is made out. The jurisdiction as such is rather limited and restricted and its undue expansion is neither practicable nor warranted. He further submitted that the law as to when criminal proceedings can be quashed by the High Court in exercise of powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. or Article 226 of the Constitution has been laid down by the Supreme Court in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal reported in AIR 1992 SC 604. Same view without deviation has been reiterated in subsequent decisions in Pepsi Foods Ltd. V. Judicial Magistrate (1998) 5 SCC 749, Minu Kumari v. State of Bihar (2006) 4 SCC 359. 3 3 Lastly he submitted that present petition deserves to be dismissed as the controversy stands concluded by the decision of the Supreme Court in State of Madhya Pradesh v. Rameshwar Patel and other--AIR 2009 SC (Supp) 1820. 7. After careful consideration of submission in the back drop of established legal principles, we are of the opinion that in the present case allegations against applicants are that they sanctioned and advanced housing loans against Bank’s policy in connivance with Bank administration to ineligible persons. Allegations against them prima facie reveal sufficient material to take/initiate penal action U/s. 406,409,419,420 read with Section 120-B IPC against them. We find force in the submissions of the counsel for the respondents. The decision of the Supreme Court in State of M.P. v. Rameshwar Patel reported in AIR 2009 SC (Supp) 1820 between the same parties is clinching and squarely covers the controversy as raised in this petition. That was the case where Supreme Court upheld the initiation of criminal proceedings against Rameshwar Patel and other for their acts of commission and omissions resulting in criminal misconduct and breach of public trust by advancing loans to concerned borrowers for purchase of different kinds of vehicles. It was held that applicants hold the status of ‘public servant’ for the purposes of their prosecution under the provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. In this view of the matter, it is unnecessary for us to dilate upon various decisions cited on behalf of applicants and suffice it to say that in 4 4 view of the decision in State of M.P. v. Rameshwar Patel and others, there is no merit and substance in the petition and it deserves to be dismissed. 8. In the result, petition fails and is hereby dismissed. Let a copy of this order be retained in the record of connected M.Cr.C. No. 122 of 2005- Ratanlal Chouhan and others v. State of M.P. and others. We make it clear that the view expressed by us in this judgment are prima facie in nature for the disposal of these petitions only and should not influence the trial in any way. (S.K.SETH) (M.C.GARG) JUDGE JUDGE Hk 5 5