Apresh Garg And Another Vs Union of India And 3 Others (Allahabad High Court)
Allahabad High Court held that after one time settlement of loan between borrowers and guarantor with bank, the criminal proceedings against accused [who is neither borrower nor guarantor] having business relation with borrower is liable to be quashed.
Facts- The instant application U/s 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 has been preferred by the applicant-Apresh Garg with a prayer to quash the charge-sheet dated 31.01.2024, cognizance / summoning order dated 19.11.2024 under Section 120-B read with 420 I.P.C. and consequential criminal proceedings arising out of F.I.R. dated 18.11.2020 under Sections 120B r/w 420, 467,468 and 471 I.P.C. and Section 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act.
It is also pointed out that M/s Govinda International, the original borrower which has availed the loan facilities has entered into one time settlement with the bank and the liabilities of the bank has already been paid. It is not a case of cheating or fraud with the bank on the part of the applicants. Maximum it might be a case of breach of condition on the part of borrower. The hypothecation of goods is not entrustment but it is a charge on the goods. The relationship between borrower and banker is not an entrustment. On the strength of aforesaid facts, it is also argued that in fact, main allegation in the present case relates to a borrower and lender, hence, primarily it is a civil dispute which has already been settled between the borrower and the bank. Hence, criminal proceeding against the applicants is liable to be quashed.
