IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.43842 of 2007 RAJIV RANJAN Versus STATE OF BIHAR & ANR ----------- 3. 09.01.2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State as also for Opposite party no. 2. The petitioner seeks quashing of the entire proceedings in Complaint case No. 1586 C of 2004 including the order dated 14.8.2005 taking cognizance under Sections 323, 420, 468, 504, 120B of the Penal Code. The submission on behalf of the petitioner, the Manager of the Bank is that the complaint itself states that some persons appeared to have played a fraud with the Bank; that the petitioner as Manager of the Bank in question sanctioned the loan on basis of papers which were placed before him and of which he has no reason to doubt the correctness. The complainant has filed the present complaint only after a legal notice was sent to the complainant and certificate proceedings instituted for recovery of the loan for which the complainant had given his land documents as a guarantee. Learned counsel for the complainant contended that the complaint itself states that he was an illiterate person; that his land documents were fraudulently used to create a guarantee for a loan given to one M/S United Diesels with whom he had no concern. The loan documents of the Bank presently sought to be relied upon at Annexure-4 mentions him as a person who was 2 employed in the PRDA and bears the photograph of another. The complainant has placed on record his own photograph at Annexure-A to the counter affidavit filed today based on the identity card furnished to him by the Election Commission of India. The submission, therefore, is of a fraudulent guarantor status of the complainant created by the accused to his detriment when his lands have been locked up by impersonation. The allegations in the complaint are of pledgement of the land documents of the complainant for purposes of loan given to one M/S United Diesels. The allegations further are that this entire arrangement was done in conspiracy. A serious controversy has been raised even with regard to the identity of the guarantor. Whether the Bank and its officials was victim of the conspiracy or part of the conspiracy is a matter which can more appropriately be decided in the trial itself. This Court, therefore, at this stage under Section 482 Cr.P.C. finds it difficult to arrive at a positive conclusion as urged on behalf of the petitioner that he was unwilling and unsuspecting party to the agreement so as to grant relief in this application. The application is, accordingly, dismissed. AKS/ (Navin Sinha, J.)