JUDGMENT
A.K. Parichha, J.
1. This is an application under Section 482. Criminal Procedure Code (in short, ‘Cr.P.C.) for quashing the proceeding in Vigilance G.R.Case No. 7 of 2005, corresponding to Vigilance FIR No. 7 of 2005 pending in the Court of learned Special C.J.M., Vigilance, Bhubaneswar. The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Vigilance Cell, Bhubaneswar lodged an FIR alleging that the petitioner who is working as Company Secretary of Orissa Rural Housing Development Corporation Ltd., Bhubaneswar (in short, ‘ORHDC’) and the Managing Director of the said Corporation entered into a criminal conspiracy with a builder firm “M/s. Metro Builders Pvt. Limited” and in prosecution of that conspiracy sanctioned and disbursed a loan of Rs. 1.5 crores to that firm abusing their official position. Basing on the said FIR Bhubaneswar Vigilance P.S.Case No. 7 of 2005 was registered under Section 13(2)(/13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act read with Section 120-B of IPC and investigation was undertaken. Aggrieved by such registration of the case and investigation, the petitioner has filed the present application for declaring the registration of the case illegal and for quashing of the investigation and the proceeding of the case.
2. Mr. Govind Das, learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was working as Company Secretary of the O.R.H.D.S., Bhubaneswar and his official role was confirmed to the documentation part of the loan transactions and he was in no way concerned with the sanction or disbursement of the loan to M/s. Metro Builders Pvt. Ltd. and for that reason the case under Section 13(2)/13(1)(d) of the P.C.Act and Section 120-B of the IPC is not maintainable against him. In this regard, Mr. Das indicated several clauses of the power of attorney, copy of the deed of the agreement, the legal heir certificate, copy of Khatian, copy of the additional agreement and copy of the Board of Resolution. According to him, when the loanee M/s. Metro Builders Pvt. Ltd. had executed the required documents and the title deeds of the property mortgaged had been deposited and valid power of attorney holder had offered collateral security, sanction and disbursement of the loan can never be termed as illegal or product of any criminal conspiracy. Mr. Das, specifically submitted that the allegations and materials put forth by the Vigilance authorities do not constitute any case against the petitioner for the alleged offences and so quashing of the FIR and investigation in Bhubaneswar Vigilance P.S.Case No. 7 of 2005 is necessary.
3. Mr. D. Mohapatra, learned Standing Counsel (Vigilance) on the other hand submitted that ORHDC is constituted with the primary object of providing cost effective fire proof houses to the poor persons of rural areas and there was no scope for the said Corporation to grant hefty loans to the urban builders like M/s. Metro Builders Pvt. Ltd. He submitted that sanction and disbursement of loan of Rs. 1.5 Crores to M/s. Metro Builders Pvt. Ltd. itself suggests that the petitioner and the Managing Director of the Corporation were involved in criminal conspiracy with that firm. Mr. Mohapatra further submitted that the loanee M/s. Metro Builders Pvt. Ltd. was already a defaulter and had also not. executed proper documents of mortgage, collateral security etc., for the loan applied for but the petitioner recommended its application for the loan, as a result, the loan was sanctioned and public funds were wasted. Mr. Mohapatra further submitted that there are clear allegations of official misconduct and criminal conspiracy against the petitioner in the FIR and investigation is going on into the said allegations and so at this juncture quashing of the FIR and investigation would amount to throttling the process of investigation and depriving the investigating agency from finding out truth or falsity of allegations.
4. In the case of Rajesh Bajaj v. State NCT of Delhi and Ors., , the apex Court observed that the inherent power under Section 482, Cr.P.C. is not to be normally exercised for quashing the police investigation as the field of investigation is exclusively reserved for the investigating agency. The Court, however, indicated that in exceptional circumstances where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint even if taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety, do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused the Court may quash the FIR and investigation connected with such FIR. In S.N. Palanitkar and Ors. v. State of Bihar and Anr., , also the apex Court indicated that where the alleged acts against the accused do not constitute any offence, the Court would be justified in exercising the inherent power under Section 482, Cr.P.C. for quashing the proceeding. In Union of India v. Prakash P. Hinduja and Anr. AIR 2003 Page 2612, the Supreme Court specifically laid down the grounds on which the power under Section 482, Cr.P.C. can be exercised for quashing the FIR and the investigation connected with the FIR. The grounds noted are as follows :
(1) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint even if taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence for making out a case against the accused. (2) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or the complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused. (3) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure or the concerned Acts to the institution and continuance of the proceedings. So, the settled judicial mandate is that an FIR and investigation connected with an FIR can be quashed if the allegations made in the FIR do not reveal any case against the accused or if there is an express legal bar for institution of such FIR and continuance of such proceeding.
5. In the FIR of Bhubaneswar Vigilance P.S.Case No. 7 of 2005 it has been alleged that the petitioner being the Secretary of the ORHDC, Bhubaneswar recommended the loan application of M/s. Metro Builders Pvt. Ltd., although the said loanee was a defaulter and had not executed the required documents like tripartite agreement, mortgaged documents, collateral security etc. in a proper manner. It is also alleged that the petitioner without pointing out the defects and lapses of M/s. Metro Builders Pvt. Ltd. recommended the loan application knowing fully well that the ORHDC is meant for providing cost effective houses to the rural poor and not to urban builders. There is also allegation in the FIR that the petitioner and the Managing Director acted in excess of their authority and abused their official position in order to show undue favour to M/s. Metro Builders Pvt. Ltd. The submission of Mr. Das, learned senior counsel for the petitioner is that proper documents had been executed by the loanee and adequate mortgage had also been given and so no offence was committed by the petitioner. It is also submitted that the role of the petitioner was limited to the documentation part of the transaction and so the allegation of criminal conspiracy is also unfounded.
6. Admittedly, the petitioner is a public servant and was connected with the processing of the loan application of M/s. Metro Builders Pvt. Ltd. Whether he had entered into criminal conspiracy with the builder and other co-accused persons or whether he acted bona fide while discharging his part of the job in processing the loan application is under investigation and only after the completion of investigation, it would be possible to know the prima facie truth or falsity of the allegation. It is submitted by Mr. Das that the documents, which have been filed by the petitioner would show that the loan in favour of M/s. Metro Builders Pvt. Ltd. was sanctioned properly and that the petitioner had nothing to do with the sanction of the loan. The materials, which are now placed in defence of the petitioner before this Court cannot be examined at this stage to find out the truth or falsity of the allegations as it has already been clarified in the case of State of Orissa v. Debendra Nath Padhi {(2005) 30 OCR (SC) 177}, that at the stage of investigation and cognizance the defence plea and evidence are not to be considered by the Court.
7. In the FIR some specific allegations have been raised against the petitioner which if accepted prima facie reveal commission of offence under Section 120-B of the IPC and Sections 13(1)(d)/13(2) of the P.C. Act. So, there is no scope of saying that the allegations made in the FIR taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused. Truth or falsity of the allegations noted in the FIR can be known only after the completion of the investigation. Quashing the FIR and investigation at this juncture will, therefore, not be in the best interest of justice. The I.O. may however take due note of the documents relied by the petitioner during the course of investigation,
8. For the above said reasons, the inherent power under Section 482, Cr.P.C. cannot be exercised for quashing the FIR and connected investigation in Bhubaneswar Vigilance P.S.Case No. 7 of 2005. The prayer of the petitioner accordingly stands rejected and CRLMC stands dismissed.