Bhushan Kumar Minocha vs State Of Uttarakhand And Others

Ravindra Maithani, J

The instant petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short "the Code") has been filed for quashing the charge-sheet dated 21.01.2014 as well as the entire proceedings of Criminal Case No. 1497 of 2014, State Vs. Bhushan Kumar Minocha, pending in the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Roorkee (for short "the case").

Facts necessary for disposal of this petition are briefly stated as hereunder:-

Respondent no.3, who was the Chief Manager in Punjab National Bank, Branch B.T. Ganj Roorkee (for short "the Bank"), lodged a report on 20.11.2007, under Sections 380, 420, 467, 468 and 471 IPC against a Virendra Singh and Manoj Kumar, the Directors, M/s Hardcore Strips India Private Ltd. (for short "the company"). According to the FIR, Virendra Singh and Manoj Kumar approached the Bank and submitted a proposal for a loan of Rs.5,90 lakhs. It was sanctioned on 28.07.2006 and documents with regard to guarantee were also executed. Both the Directors had mortgaged their personal properties as well. The company made default in payment of the loan. It may be noted that the informant was the Chief Manager of the Bank at the relevant time. On 29.09.2007, the informant visited the company premises and found that it was partially established and some prepared goods were being loaded in a truck, but nothing was being manufactured. Again on 03.10.2007, the informant visited the company premises, but then he found that no manufacturing activity was being carried out. On 05.10.2007, when the Bank officers were sent with an intention to recover the dues, it was revealed that Virendra Singh had removed the computer and air conditioner from the company premises and there was no employee in the factory. The informant immediately deputed Security Guards in the factory premises for the security of the goods and machinery in the company premises and also informed the Police Station Bhagwanpur on the same day.

On 09.10.2007, when the informant examined the documents of the company with regard to the loan, he found that documents pertaining to two mortgaged properties were missing from the Bank records. The informant visited Bhiwani, where the company's registered office was situated. When he enquired about the land records, it was revealed that the documents of two properties, which Virendra Singh had claimed of his own and which were mortgaged with the Bank, were recorded in the name of some other person. With these and other relevant assertions, FIR has been lodged. The matter was investigated and initially, on 29.05.2012, Charge-Sheet No. 18 of 2012 (for short "first charge-sheet") was submitted against Manoj Kumar and one Shyam Lal Dhadichi, who was Chartered Accountant of the company and in the first charge-sheet with regard to petitioner Virendra Singh and Chandra Mohan Arora, the informant, it was recorded that they were to be arrested.

During investigation, informant filed a Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 405 of 2012, in this Court, in which, initially, protection was granted to him on 15.05.2012, but finally, on 20.06.2012, the Court was informed by the State counsel that "after completion of investigation, charge-sheet has been filed against the petitioner Chandra Mohan Arora." In view of the statement, the Court observed "this writ petition seeking quashing of First Information Report dated 20.11.2007, registered as Crime No. 322 of 2007, relating to offences, punishable under Sections 380, 420, 467, 468 and 471 IPC at Police Station Gangnahar, District Haridwar has become infructuous." Accordingly, the writ petition was dismissed as infructuous. The investigation continued after submission of the first charge-sheet and on 21.01.2014, Charge-Sheet No.18-A/2014 was submitted against the petitioner. It is basis of the case. In the case on 07.02.2014, cognizance was taken and petitioner was summoned to answer the accusations under Sections 120-B, 201, 380, 420, 467, 468 and 471 IPC. It is this charge-sheet and these proceedings, which are impugned herein.

On behalf of the petitioner, leaned senior counsel would argue that petitioner has not committed any offence; no offence has been made out against him; he has been made a scape-goat. The following arguments have been raised on behalf of the petitioner:-

a. That the petitioner was posted in the Bank from 03.08.2004 to 30.06.2007. Till the period, the petitioner was posted in the Bank, neither any documents were found missing nor did the company made any default in payment of the loan.

b. The loan was sanctioned to the company on 28.07.2006. Thereafter, on 25.08.2006, it is the informant, who recommended that the properties, which were mortgaged against the loan, be substituted. It was done by him, by his letter dated 25.08.2006 and further, he send a reminder to the Zonal Office, on 26.08.2006 and on 30.08.2006, the amendment in terms and conditions, as proposed by the informant were approved by the Zonal Officer.

c. During the pendency of Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 405 of 2012, it was told to the Court that charge-sheet has been submitted against the informant, but subsequently, the informant approached the Chief Minister and the Under Secretary issued directions for reinvestigation and in the reinvestigation, the informant was exonerated and charge-sheet was submitted against the petitioner alone.

d. The informant influenced further investigation. The petitioner had handed over the charge on 30.06.2007. Entire dealing with the Directors was done by Harshvardhan, the then Chief Manager and after his transfer by the informant, who was Chief Manager of the Bank. The petitioner did not commit any offence. The basis for submitting charge-sheet against the petitioner has been disclosed by the Investigating Officer in the charge-sheet itself as follows, but it does not make out, prima-facie, any offence:-

a. Petitioner did not make proper enquiry from the Registrar of the companies, nor did he inform about mortgage of property of the borrowers.

b. The petitioner did not verify the genuineness of Directors of the company from the Registrar of Company.

c. Title deed was not verified by the petitioner.

d. The loan amount was disbursed before completing entire formalities.

e. Installation of factory/unit was not verified.

On behalf of the State, learned counsel would argue that various irregularities were done in sanctioning the loan to the company and many Bank officers were involved in it and the petitioner is one of them. During investigation, the name of the petitioner came into light. Learned State counsel would also argue that what offence has been made out on the allegations levelled against the petitioner is a matter to be tested during trial. In these proceedings under Section 482 of the Code, it cannot be examined.

On behalf of respondent no.3, who is informant also, it is argued that the loan was processed by Harshvardan, who was the then Chief Manager at the relevant time and it is he, who had done the entire documentation.

In fact, during the course of argument, on behalf of the petitioner, an argument has been advanced that the informant was once charge-sheeted, but he has falsely been given an affidavit in the proceedings dated 25.08.2019, stating therein, that he has never been charge-sheeted. In response to it, on behalf of respondent no.3, it is argued that even in the first charge-sheet, the informant was not charge-sheeted and his name was shown in Column No.2, as a person, who was not charge-sheeted. It is argued that if any wrong information was given by the State counsel to the Court in Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 405 of 2012, it does not make the informant liable in any manner.

This aspect may be dealt with at this stage only. The informant, in fact, is arguing in most technical manner. The first Charge-Sheet No. 18 of 2012 was submitted by the Investigating Officer on 29.05.2011. It was the date, when Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 405 of 2012 filed by the informant was pending, in which, he was granted protection. After submission of the charge-sheet, when the Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 405 of 2012 was taken up for hearing on 20.07.2012, on that date, a statement was given on behalf of the State, which is quoted hereinabove, that charge-sheet has already been submitted against the informant, who was the petitioner in the petition. Based on this statement, the proceedings of the Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 405 of 2012 were dismissed as being infructuous. It is true that in the first charge-sheet, the name of the informant, who is respondent no.3, herein, has been shown in a column of the persons, who were not charge-sheeted, but its contents are important. What is written in the first charge-sheet is that a case has been proved against respondent no.3 also and his arrest is yet to be made. So, technically most of the investigation was completed against respondent no.3 in the first charge-sheet and his arrest was to be made on it. After his arrest, of course, a further charge-sheet was to be submitted, which was never done because he was subsequently, exonerated not based on any other material collected by the Investigating Officer. But in the second charge-sheet against the petitioner, the Investigating Officer made his own analysis and exonerated the petitioner, while submitting charge-sheet against the petitioner, but this Court leaves it here.

This is a petition under Section 482 of the Code. The scope of Section 482 of the Code is quite wide. It is invoked to make any order, as may be necessary to give effect to any order under the Code, or to prevent the abuse of process of any Court or to secure the ends of justice. There has been catena of decisions with regard to exercise of jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code. The law has been summed up in the case of Indian Oil Corpn. Vs. NEPC India Ltd. And Others, (2006) 6 SCC 736. In para no.12 of it, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed as hereunder:-

"12. The principles relating to exercise of jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to quash complaints and criminal proceedings have been stated and reiterated by this Court in several decisions. To mention a few - Madhavrao Jiwaji Rao Scindia v. Sambhajirao Chandrojirao Angre (1988) (1) SCC 692 : 1988 SCC (Cri) 234, State of Haryana v. Bhajanlal 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 : 1992 SCC (Cri) 426, Rupan Deol Bajaj v. Kanwar Pal Singh Gill (1995) 6 SCC 194 : 1995 SCC (Cri) 1059, Central Bureau of Investigation v. Duncans Agro Industries Ltd. (1996) 5 SCC 591 : 1996 SCC (Cri) 1045, State of Bihar v. Rajendra Agrawalla (1996) 8 SCC 164 : 1996 SCC (Cri) 628, Rajesh Bajaj v. State NCT of Delhi 1999 (3) SCC 259 : 1999 SCC (Cri) 401, Medchl Chemicals & Pharma (P) Ltd. v. Biological E. Ltd. (2000) 3 SCC 269 : 2000 SCC (Cri) 615, Hridaya Ranjan Prasad Verma v. State of Bihar (2000) 4 SCC 168 : 2000 SCC (Cri) 786, M. Krishnan v. Vijay Singh (2001) 8 SCC 645 : 2002 SCC (Cri) 19 and Zandu Phamaceutical Works Ltd. v. Mohd. Sharaful Haque (2005) 1 SCC 122 : 2005 SCC (Cri) 283. The principles, relevant to our purpose are:

(i) A complaint can be quashed where the allegations made in the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety, do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out the case alleged against the accused.

For this purpose, the complaint has to be examined as a whole, but without examining the merits of the allegations. Neither a detailed inquiry nor a meticulous analysis of the material nor an assessment of the reliability or genuineness of the allegations in the complaint, is warranted while examining prayer for quashing of a complaint.

(ii) A complaint may also be quashed where it is a clear abuse of the process of the court, as when the criminal proceeding is found to have been initiated with malafides/malice for wreaking vengeance or to cause harm, or where the allegations are absurd and inherently improbable.

(iii) The power to quash shall not, however, be used to stifle or scuttle a legitimate prosecution. The power should be used sparingly and with abundant caution.

(iv) The complaint is not required to verbatim reproduce the legal ingredients of the offence alleged. If the necessary factual foundation is laid in the complaint, merely on the ground that a few ingredients have not been stated in detail, the proceedings should not be quashed. Quashing of the complaint is warranted only where the complaint is so bereft of even the basic facts which are absolutely necessary for making out the offence.

(v) A given set of facts may make out : (a) purely a civil wrong; or (b) purely a criminal offence; or (c) a civil wrong as also a criminal offence. A commercial transaction or a contractual dispute, apart from furnishing a cause of action for seeking remedy in civil law, may also involve a criminal offence. As the nature and scope of a civil proceedings are different from a criminal proceeding, the mere fact that the complaint relates to a commercial transaction or breach of contract, for which a civil remedy is available or has been availed, is not by itself a ground to quash the criminal proceedings. The test is whether the allegations in the complaint disclose a criminal offence or not."

Undoubtedly, it is settled law that if, prima-facie, case is made out, no interference is warranted in such proceedings. Meticulous examination of material should not be made. One of the basic principles is also that the power to quash the proceedings shall not be used to stifle or scuttle a legitimate prosecution.

In the instant case, what is being argued is that no offence as such is made out against the petitioner. Petitioner was posted as Loan Manager in the Bank up till 30.06.2007. The loan was sanctioned to the company on 28.07.2006 and the amendments in its terms with regard to substituting the mortgaged property was done on 30.08.2006. On 09.10.2007, it was found that documents of two properties, which were mortgaged by the company were not traceable in the Bank. On that date, the petitioner was not in the Bank. In fact, in the instant case, the petitioner has categorically asserted that no case is made out against the petitioner; he has filed statements of the witnesses recorded during investigation; he has also filed the documents relating to loan executed in the Bank to show that he had no role; he had not dealt with the company in sanctioning the loan. But, the response of the State is quite evasive which will be exhibited hereinafter.

It is the case of the petitioner that he has not committed any offence. No, prima-facie, case is made out against him. To appreciate this argument, the material has to be examined and this Court proposes to do it. It is also the case of the petitioner that he did not deal with the company for sanctioning the loan. But, it was Harshvardan who dealt with it and thereafter, the informant C.M. Arora, was dealing with the company. In Para No. 23 of the petition, the petitioner has written that the then Chief Manager, Harshvardhan made his statement on 12.11.2010 and stated that the loan application was submitted by the borrowers before him alongwith all relevant papers and all the papers were scrutinized by him before submitting them to the Zonal Office. The copy of the statement of Harshvardhan has been enclosed by the petitioner as Ex-15.

State in its counter-affidavit dated 16.07.2017, at Para No 19 has stated that Para No.23 of the petition is not admitted. Similarly, in Para No. 24 of the petition, the petitioner has stated that on 10.07.2008, the informant C.M. Arora in his statement admitted that he got the sale-deeds changed, in respect of two properties belonging to Kusum Lata and Om Prakash Grewal. It was also admitted by him that entire documents were examined by Harshvardan in his petition. Copy of the statement of C.M. Arora has been enclosed as Ex-16 and in Para No.25, the petitioner writes about another statement given by C.M Arora to the Investigating Officer, on 04.04.2013, stating that the current account of the company was opened by Harshvardhan, who signed the documents. The State in its counter-affidavit, in Para Nos. 20 and 21 did not admit the contents of Para Nos. 24 and 25 of the petition. It was not something which was bald assertion by the petitioner. Petitioner has submitted the statements of Harshvardhan and C.M. Arora, which find mention in Para Nos. 23, 24 and 25 of the petition. The State simply did not admit them, but why? The question was whether the statements, which were filed as Annexure Nos. 15, 16 and 17 are not correct and, if so, what is wrong in the contents of Para Nos. 23, 24 and 25? This Court, while hearing this matter on 17.08.2020 observed this evasive denial by the State and observed as hereunder:-

"There are some issues, which have been raised in the petition. At para nos. 23, 24 and 25, petitioner had stated about some statements of the witnesses recorded during investigation. But, surprisingly in para nos. 19, 20 and 21 of its counter-affidavit dated 16.06.2017, the State has not admitted the averments. On what basis are the statements filed by the petitioner not genuine, if so, where are the genuine statements. Another counter-affidavit supplementary filed by Anjana Negi, on 20.08.2019. In para no. 7 of it, there are various statements and at page no.5, it records that the documents were stolen from the Bank before 09.10.2017, when the applicant was posted in the Bank.

It is the case of the petitioner that he was relieved from the Bank and, in fact, the statement, which has been filed by the petitioner, which are at annexure no.16. C.M. Arora tells to the Investigation Officer in answer to a question that since, 15.05.2007, the documents were in joint custody and in his further statement, which is annexure no.17 at page no.3 para no.2, he has stated that after transfer of Minocha on 30.06.2007, the custody of the documents were in joint custody of Loan manager and Anil Gupta. Now the question is, if after 30.06.2007, the documents were in custody of new Loan Manager, Raj Kumar with joint custody of Anil Gupta, how is it being said that the documents were stolen when the petitioner was posted there.

State has no reply to it."

In his entire arguments, State has not clarified it. On behalf of State, no document has been filed to show, as to how, the averments made in Para Nos. 23, 24 and 25 of the petition are wrong. Annexure No.15, which finds mention in Para No.23 of the petition, is statement of Harshvardhan, the Chief Manager of the Bank. In his statement, he tells in quite detail, as to how, the loan proposal was processed; he was dealing with the company. He has stated about each and every detail. Not only this, he says that valuation report of the company was prepared by a S.B. Bose Dhiwani, who was the member of the approved panel. He visited the company's site. What he says is that confidential report of the Directors and Guarantors were prepared by the petitioner, which was signed by Harshvardhan and D.S. Gunjiyal. The loan proposal was prepared by the petitioner, which was forwarded under the signature of the petitioner, Senior Manager and Harshvardhan to the Zonal Officer. Not only this, Harshvardhan, in his statement given to the Investigating Officer has also told that, in fact, he himself had verified the mortgaged property and he visited Bhiwani for this purpose.

Ex-16 is the statement of the informant, who is respondent no.3 C.M. Arora. He also tells that the loan was sanctioned by Harshvardhan and he did everything about it. Petitioner was not a person unknown to the Bank; he was Loan Manager; he was in the loop, but as per the statement of Harshvardhan, the then Chief Manager, it is he, who was dealing with the company; it is he, who visited Bhiwani and verified the mortgaged property. Annexure No.16 is the statement of C.M. Arora, the informant, he also corroborates what Harshvardhan has stated to the Investigating Officer. After sanctioning of the loan on 28.07.2006, it is the case that Virendra Singh substituted two mortgaged properties and proposed his own property to be substituted by them. According to C.M. Arora, the informant Virendra Singh visited him on 25.08.2006 and shown him two sale-deeds. Thereafter, he submitted a proposal for change of the mortgaged property. In the statement as enclosed in Annexure No.17 to the petition, the informant has also reiterated all these things. He said one additional thing that it was the petitioner, who told him first that the company wants to change the mortgaged properties.

In fact, petitioner filed a supplementary affidavit on 26.07.2019 and in para no.4 of it, he wrote that two sale-deeds, which were included later on, by removing the sale-deeds of Kusum Lata and Om Prakash, for which, the promoter made a request was approved and recommended by C.M. Arora to the Zonal Office followed by a reminder. It was subsequently approved by Zonal Manager. In his statement given to the Investigating Officer as enclosed in Annexure No.16 to the petition, informant C.M. Arora has stated the same thing. Although, in his statement given to the Investigating Officer as enclosed in Annexure No.17 to the petition, he has introduced the petitioner, as a person who told him that, the Directors want to substitute the mortgaged property. But, in response to the supplementary affidavit dated 26.07.2019 of the petitioner, in para no.4 of his affidavit dated 25.08.2019, the respondent no.3 did not mention that it is the petitioner, who told that the Directors want to change the mortgaged properties. In this affidavit, the informant deposed that "the exchange of sale-deeds of property was done after a proper sanction by the Zonal Office and thereafter, only the loan documentation was done by following all legal and banking loans." Here, the informant has not assigned any role to the petitioner on this aspect.

The question is what is the role of the petitioner? Initially, it was Chief Manager, Harshvardhan, who was dealing with the company. The loan was sanctioned on 28.07.2006. Of course, in his capacity as the Loan Manager, the petitioner was preparing documents. But, what wrong and what irregularity has he done. The mortgaged properties were substituted, when on 25.08.2006 Virendra Singh approached the informant and on that date itself, the proposal was submitted by the informant to the Zonal Office and thereafter, a reminder was also sent on 26.08.2016 and the Zonal Office approved it on 30.08.2006. This letter dated 25.08.2006 of the informant is Annexure No.4 to the petition. In Page No.2, Serial No.1, the informant writes that he had obtained fresh legal opinion-cum-search report of I.P. This is with regard to the property of Smt. Kusum Lata, which was allegedly transferred to Virendra Singh. Similar assertions were made at Serial No.2 by the informant with regard to Om Prakash Grewal's property. These are contents of the communication made by the informant on 25.08.2006, addressed to Deputy General Manager and it was followed by a reminder on the next date. The properties were substituted. Zonal Office recommended it on 30.08.2006.

Apparently, prima-facie, there is no role of the petitioner at all. Petitioner was transferred from the Branch on 30.06.2007. The documents pertaining to these two properties of Virendra Singh were found missing on 09.10.2007. How is the petitioner responsible for that? In his statement at Annexure No.17 given to the Investigating Officer, informant C.M. Arora has stated that the documents were in the joint custody of the Loan Manager and D.S. Gunjiyal and after transfer of petitioner on 30.06.2007, according to the informant, the keys were lying with Raj Kumar, the Loan Manager and the second key was with Anil Gupta. The Investigating Officer, on 04.04.2013 asked various questions to the informant about the custody of the documents. He has repeatedly said that these documents were in the joint custody of Loan Manager and one more Manager and after transfer of the petitioner, it was Raj Kumar, Loan Manager and one Anil Gupta, Senior Manager. In his statement Annexure No.16 given to the Investigating Officer, the informant has further stated about it and in reply to one question, he said that when the documents were found missing at that relevant time Raj Kumar, the Loan Manager and Anil Gupta, Senior Manager were joint custodian of it. If they were joint custodian, what is the role of the petitioner? State has not filed one document to rebut these documents. They simply said that petitioner was at fault, but why?

Petitioner is coming with all the details that he has not done anything wrong. Interestingly, in response to supplementary affidavit dated 26.07.219 of the petitioner, on behalf of the State, a counter-affidavit was filed on 20.08.2019 and in this counter- affidavit, again on behalf of the State, it is stated that the mortgaged documents were later on stolen from the Bank before 09.10.2007, when the applicant was posted in the Bank. How could State say so? What is its basis? The petitioner had already been transferred on 30.06.2007. The documents were in the custody of the then Loan Manager Raj Kumar and Anil Gupta, the Senior Manager. Is it the case of the State that the custody of the documents was not handed over by the petitioner to Raj Kumar, the Loan Manager? It is not the case.

This Court is still trying to see whether there is any case against the petitioner.

In the charge-sheet, the wrongs committed by the petitioner have been narrated. They are as hereunder:-

a. The petitioner did not obtain search report from Registrars of Company at Delhi and Haryana.

b. The petitioner did not verify, the Directors as shown in the Project Report.

c. Legality of the documents, which were mortgaged on 28.08.2006 were not enquired by the petitioner.

d. Loan was paid from 29.08.2006.

e. The petitioner did not verify the forged audit-report of the company.

f. The petitioner did not verify the income-tax returns submitted by the Directors, which was necessary before disbursement of the loan.

g. The petitioner did not forward copies of the property mortgaged by Virendra Singh.

According to charge-sheet by doing those above acts, the petitioner assisted the accused, the company officers to commit the offence.

If above were the duties of the petitioner and they were not done, why loan was sanctioned? Why disbursement was made? It is not the case that the petitioner was the over all in-charge of sanctioning loan. He was a Loan Manager. Process was being dealt by the Chief Manager of the Bank, Senior Manager of the Bank and, in fact, the loan was dealt by the Zonal Office. These properties were verified, as stated Annexure No.4 is the letter dated 25.08.2006 of the informant, by which, the mortgaged properties were substituted. In Para No.2 of it, the informant writes that he had obtained legal opinion and search report of it. In para no.8 of its counter-affidavit, State has denied it and stated that it is based on the recommendation of the petitioner. But, as stated, in its counter-affidavit, the respondent no.3, the informant has not stated that change of mortgaged properties were done at any recommendation of the petitioner.

In Para No.10 of the petition, the petitioner has stated that, in fact, all the documentation was genuine, because there was a vetting report dated 18.04.2007, which is Annexure No.6 to the petition. In its counter-affidavit, surprisingly, the State writes at Para No.11 that the vetting reports dated 18.04.2007 were managed by the co-accused persons and the petitioner, in order to cheat the Bank. But who has submitted this vetting report? Was not it the Bank's fault? How did the petitioner manage the vetting report? These all questions generally are not examined in the proceeding under Section 482 of the Code. But, when the question is of prima-facie case and there is no response from the State, hence it bears much significance.

Petitioner did not deal with the company initially. It was the Chief Manager, Harshvardhan, who was dealing with the company. The loan was sanctioned on 28.07.2006. The petitioner was acting as a Loan Manager. Even the documents were in joint custody of the petitioner and a D.S. Gunjiyal, Senior Manager. On 25.08.2006, it is the informant, who recommended substitution of two mortgaged properties and in the letter, the informant writes to the Zonal Office that he has got search report etc., about the change of the mortgaged property. It is the informant, who on 26.08.2006 sends a reminder to the Zonal Office for change of the mortgaged properties. On 30.08.2006, the change was approved by the Zonal Office. On 09.10.2007, it was found that the documents pertaining to the properties, which were mortgaged on 25.08.2006 with the Bank were missing. On that date, the petitioner was not posted in the Bank. It is not the case that he did not hand-over the charge. It is not the case that he did not hand-over the loan documents. Petitioner was not over all in-charge of the affairs, he was the Loan Manager only. He was being supervised by the Senior Manager, Chief Manager and the final authority was the Zonal Officer. If any procedure, in sanctioning the loan was not completed by the petitioner, the process would have been stopped there. In fact, respondent no.3, the informant has not choose to file counter-affidavit in the petition. He simply filed a counter-affidavit to the affidavit filed by the petitioner dated 26.07.2019, by which the petitioner sought fresh investigation or reinvestigation.

Having considered all the facts, this Court is of the view that, in fact, no prima-facie case is made out against the petitioner and the petition deserves to be allowed.

The petition is allowed.

The charge-sheet in question & the entire proceedings of the case are quashed qua the petitioner.

Let a copy of this judgment be sent to the concerned court.