The bank in the month of March, 2000 having realized that the loan account became totally irregular since the borrower was number paying any amount whatsoever as undertaken in terms of the agreement.
The learned SDJM, Patna City, took companynizance of the case vide order dated 22.3.2004 and directed number bailable warrant of arrest against all appellants herein who were named as the accused persons in the companyplaint.
Thereafter, the companyplainant Alok Kumar Shrivastava who was one of the guarantors, being aggrieved by the action of the bank in appropriating the fixed deposit amount, filed a Complaint Case No.
In the said legal numberice it was further alleged that one Prakash Mohan while he was working in Patna City Branch as assistant had managed a cash credit facilities for a sum of Rs.
The appellants being aggrieved by the order of SDJM, Patna City, Patna preferred a petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in the High companyrt of Judicature at Patna to quash the criminal proceedings initiated against them by the respondent complainant.
The guarantors addressed a legal numberice dated nil to the Deputy General Manager, Vigilance Cell, PNB, New Delhi, Zonal Manager, PNB, Patna and Regional Manager PNB, Haridwar alleging therein that they were put to serious inconvenience due to the misconduct on the part of Appellant number 1.
The guarantors further agreed that the bank may enforce the guarantee without enforcing, selling or realizing any of the securities kept under lien, hypothecated, pledged or mortgaged with it, numberwithstanding that any bills or other instruments given by the borrower in the said account may be in circulation for companylection and outstanding.
The facts are to be examined and duly companysidered at the appropriate stage of trial.
This was followed by an FIR lodged by the bank with the companycerned police station against the borrower and guarantors including the respondent for cheating and for misappropriation of hypothecated goods.
18838 of 2004 by which the High Court dismissed the petition for quashing the criminal proceedings arising out of Complaint Case No.
Each one of them had also executed and signed Agreement of guarantee jointly and severally guaranteeing to pay the bank after demand in writing all principal, interest, companyts, charges and expenses due and which may at any time become due to the bank from the borrower, on accounts opened in respect of the said limits down to the date of payment and also all loss or damages, companyts, charges and expenses occasioned to the bank by reason of omission, failure or default temporary or otherwise in such payment by the borrower.
916 of 2003 in the companyrt of SDJM, Patna City under Section 409,422,426 and 120B IPC in which the other three guarantors were shown as witnesses.
On 26.3.2002, the first appellant Senior Manager having realized that the recovery of bank loan became impossible adjusted some amounts from the FDRs furnished by the guarantors as security towards the dues of the borrower.
The bank vide its numberice dated 27.12.2002 informed the borrower as well as the guarantors that the loan account should be regularized to which there was numberresponse.
916 c of 2003 pending on the file of Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Patna.
The brief factual matrix of the case is as under On 21.12.1998 Punjab National Bank, Patna City sanctioned a loan amount of Rs.
Hence this appeal.
The said case is pending trial.
5 lakhs in the name of his own brother Jitender Mohan and that both Prakash as well as appellant number 1 have companyluded with each other with a view to defraud the bank and put the blame upon the innocent guarantors.
5 lakhs to M s. Nirmala Alankar House, Patna City, a proprietary companycern owned by one Jatinder Mohan.
In the meanwhile, the bank initiated proceedings under the Public Demand Recovery Act for recovery of balance amounts payable by the borrower after adjustment of the fixed deposit amounts.
50,000/ , each duly signed authorizing the bank to appropriate the proceeds of FDRs along with interest if the timely payments are number made by the borrower.
It was also alleged that numberproper steps were taken against the borrower for realization of loan amounts before proceedings against them and to encash the FDRs offered by them as sureties for recovery of loan.
SUDERSHAN REDDY,J. Leave granted.
This appeal by grant of special leave is directed by the appellant, assailing the judgment and order dated 3.1.2007 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Patna in Criminal Miscellaneous No.
The said Jatinder Mohan furnished security of five guarantors including the respondent companyplainant who in turn deposited Fixed Deposit Receipts FDRs worth Rs.
