Patna High Court
Smt. Anjana Singh vs The State Of Bihar on 3 July, 2025
Author: Sandeep Kumar
Bench: Sandeep Kumar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.1608 of 2020
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-99 Year-2017 Thana- AGAMKUAN District- Patna
======================================================
Smt. Anjana Singh, daughter of late Padam Nath Singh, resident of Flat no.
506, Bimla Raj Enclave, Near Yadav Timber, P.S.- Agamkuan, District- Patna
... ... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Deepak Kumar Son of Late Ashok Kumar Singh Resident of Mahatma
Gandhi Nagar, Kanti Factory Road, Kankarbagh, P.S.- Agamkuan, Town-
Patna, District- Patna
... ... Opposite Parties
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner : Mr. Tej Bahadur Singh, Sr. Advocate
Mr. Sanjeet Kumar, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Jharkhandi Upadhyay, APP
For the Opp. Party No.2 : Mr. Sunil Kumar Singh, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP KUMAR
CAV JUDGMENT
Date : 03-07-2025
Heard learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner,
learned APP for the State and learned counsel for the opposite
party no.2.
2. The present application has been preferred
under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for
short 'Cr.P.C.'), by the petitioner assailing the order taking
cognizance dated 18.03.2019 passed by the Additional Chief
Judicial Magistrate, Patna City, whereby the learned Magistrate
has taken cognizance against the petitioner for the offence under
sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B read with section 34 of
the Indian Penal Code ( for short 'I.P.C.') in connection with
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.1608 of 2020 dt.03-07-2025
2/21
Agamkuan P.S. Case No. 99 of 2017.
3. The case of the prosecution, in brief, relevant
for the present application is that the informant - Deepak Kumar
had made a written complaint before the officer-in-charge of the
Agamkuan Police Station on 05.03.2017 stating therein that he
has a joint property with his elder brother namely, Jai Shankar
Singh situated at Anand Path, Kati Factory Road, Patna and that
the elder brother of the informant had formed/incorporated a
firm in the name of 'Maa Vaishno Sales' in which his elder
brother had made his wife Sunita Devi (bhabhi of the informant)
as the proprietor of the aforesaid firm. It was alleged by the
informant that his brother and bhabhi had conspired with the
present petitioner, who was the Branch Manager of Punjab
National Bank, Kati Factory Road, Patna, to sanction a Cash
Credit ( for short 'CC') Loan (Business Loan) in favour of the
firm to the tune of rupees One Crore and Thirty Lakhs, for
which the joint property was mortgaged without the signature or
the consent of the informant in flagrant misuse of her post.
3.1. It is further alleged that after the loan was
sanctioned, the accused persons had distributed the amount
amongst themselves. Upon learning about the sanction of the
loan, the informant met with his brother and his wife on
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.1608 of 2020 dt.03-07-2025
3/21
05.02.2017
asking them to repay the loan however, they not
only refused to repay the aforesaid loan but also stated that they
are not concerned even if the mortgaged property is auctioned
by the bank. Based on the written complaint of the informant,
Agamkuan P.S. Case No.99 of 2017 was lodged against the
accused persons including the present petitioner.
4. After investigation, the Police submitted
charge-sheet against the accused persons including the present
petitioner under sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120B read
with section 34 of the I.P.C. and thereafter vide the impugned
order dated 18.03.2019 cognizance of the offences under
aforesaid mentioned section was taken.
5. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner
submits that the petitioner is working at Punjab National Bank
in the SMG Scale-IV and is presently posted at New Market
Branch as Chief Manager. He further submits that the crux of
the issue is that the co-accused Jay Shankar Singh and his wife
Sunita Devi had formed/incorporated a firm in the name of
‘Maa Vaishno Sales’ and the aforesaid co-accused persons had
filed an application before the Kati Factory Road branch of the
Punjab Nationa Bank for grant of a C.C. loan in favour of the
said firm on 30.01.2015 and the aforesaid file was placed before
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.1608 of 2020 dt.03-07-2025
4/21
another staff of the bank namely, Usha Kumari, who was
working as J.M.G.-II in the bank.
6. It is the submission of the learned Senior
Counsel for the petitioner that once the Bank is in receipt of the
application for grant of loan, the Loan Manager of the Bank
upon scrutiny of the papers and after an interview with the
loanee prepares the pre-sanction appraisal and thereafter makes
a proposal to the Chief Manager of the Bank recommending
grant of loan. The Chief Manager is normally the final
sanctioning authority for approval or rejection of the loan
application. The learned Senior Counsel enlists the supporting
documents which are ordinarily accompanied with a loan
application which include – audited balance sheets, Income Tax
Returns, KYC documents, photographs, security papers, latest
rent receipts, valuation of property carried out by the
approved/registered valuer of the bank and title research report
of the mortgaged property done by the approved/empanelled
advocate of the Bank.
7. The learned Senior Counsel further submits
that in the present case also when the Manager (Credit/Loan)
made a recommendation to the Chief Manager-petitioner, she
had carefully perused the supporting documents including the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.1608 of 2020 dt.03-07-2025
5/21
recommendation of the Manager (Credit/loan) and the valuation
report of the property, which was done by an
approved/empanneled valuer of the bank. During the process of
scrutiny of the supporting documents, the petitioner found that
there was no dispute with regard to the title of the mortgaged
property since the empanelled advocate had opined that the said
property is free from all encumbrances and the Bank could
mortgage the property as security in order to sanction the loan.
After considering the aforesaid facts, the loan was sanctioned.
8. It is particularly emphasised by the learned
Senior Counsel for the petitioner that no deficiency was waived
while sanctioning the loan since no deficiency was ever pointed
out in the recommendation of the Manager (Credit/Loan) or in
the valuation report or even in the title search report. Therefore,
it is submitted that there was no occasion for the petitioner to
waive any deficiency. The learned Senior Counsel points out
that the recommendations in which no deficiency/defect is
pointed by the Manager (Credit/Loan) are known as absolute
recommendations and in the present case also an absolute
recommendation was made.
9. It is next submitted by learned Senior
Counsel for the petitioner that a concurrent auditor who was
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.1608 of 2020 dt.03-07-2025
6/21
also posted at the Bank also did not point out any deficiency in
the loan documents. A special investigation of the aforesaid loan
account was carried in September, 2019 i.e. after the loan
account was declared as N.P.A. by the Bank in the month of
April 2017. In the special investigation also, no procedural
lapses or defects/deficiencies were pointed out. The learned
Senior Counsel for the petitioner therefore reiterates that neither
the concurrent auditor nor the statutory auditors could point out
anything adverse in the loan documents or find any procedural
lapse in the grant of loan.
10. It is further submitted that the loan account
was declared as N.P.A. in April, 2017 and subsequently the
Bank had preferred an application under section 19 of the
Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993 before the Debts
Recovery Tribunal, Patna, which was registered as O.A. No. 329
of 2018 and the same was decided in favour of the Bank vide
order dated 18.09.2018. Subsequently, the Bank had settled the
loan in the year 2019 at Rs.1,03,00,000/-, against which an
amount of Rs.65,09,516/- have already been paid by the loanee
to the Bank. In this regard, a certificate was also issued by the
Bank in acknowledging the same on 26.09.2019.
11. So far as the allegation of enhancement of
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.1608 of 2020 dt.03-07-2025
7/21
loan is concerned, the learned Senior Counsel has submitted that
initially another employee of the Bank, namely, Usha Kumari
had recommended the proposal of loan in favour of the firm for
approval of CC Loan of Rs.50,00,000/- and therefore based on
the aforesaid recommendation the petitioner had approved the
loan of Rs.50,00,000/- to the firm. It is submitted that thereafter
another application was made by the proprietor of the firm for
enhancing the CC Loan and subsequently after considering the
relevant documents and making the necessary verification, one
S.N. Thakur, Senior Manager of the Bank had forwarded the
concerned file for enhancement of CC loan to the tune of
Rs.80,00,000/-. It is emphasised by the learned Senior Counsel
for the petitioner that based on the recommendation forwarded
by the Senior Manager namely, S.N. Thakur, the petitioner had
approved the CC Loan enhancement on 17.07.2015. It is pointed
that since the grant of the CC loan till the month of August,
2016 there was good transaction in the bank account of the firm
however, from September, 2016 the transactions started
deteriorating.
12. The submission of the learned Senior
Counsel for the petitioner regarding sanctioning and subsequent
enhancement of the CC loan is that the petitioner acting as the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.1608 of 2020 dt.03-07-2025
8/21
Chief Manager of the Branch had no direct role to play in the
same. It was on the basis of the initial recommendation of one
Usha Kumari and thereafter on the recommendation of Senior
Manager, S.N. Thakur the petitioner had sanctioned the CC loan
and subsequently enhanced the same.
13. It is next submitted that before the sanction
of the CC loan, a title search report was submitted by the
empanelled advocate wherein nothing is stated with regard to
the title of the present informant on the mortgaged property in
question. It is argued by the learned Senior Counsel that the
informant has filed the present criminal case with a malicious
intention to defame the petitioner and to exert undue pressure on
the Bank for settling/managing the loan amount which is
outstanding in the name of his brother and his brother’s wife
(bhabhi).
14. It is argued by learned Senior Counsel for
the petitioner that co-accused Jai Shankar Singh and the
informant Deepak Kumar are own brothers and they are in
connivance with each other which is exemplified from the fact
that the informant had also taken a loan from the Budha Colony
Branch of the Punjab Nationa Bank on the same joint family
property. When the informant could not repay the loan amount
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.1608 of 2020 dt.03-07-2025
9/21
and the same came to the knowledge of his elder brother then in
March, 2017 a Title Suit being Title Partition Suit No.79 of
2017 was filed in the Court of Sub-Judge-I, Patna City.
Therefore, the act of the informant and his brother suggests that
they are in collusion with each other and have no intention to
repay their respective loan amounts and in order to avoid
repayment they choose to create undue pressure by filing false
and fabricated cases.
15. The learned Senior Counsel draws the
attention of this Court to the conduct of the informant in not
disclosing the fact that he himself had taken a loan on the said
property from Budha Colony Branch of the Bank and had not
liquidated the loan amount. This was a deliberate attempt to
suppress this fact from the Police that he himself had mortgaged
the said property without the consent of his elder brother, who is
a co-accused in the present case.
16. The learned Senior Counsel has vehemently
argued that the Police had not recorded the statement of the
petitioner during the course of investigation. It is submitted that
had the police recorded the statement of the petitioner then the
true facts about the case would have emerged and there would
not have been any material to file the chargesheet against the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.1608 of 2020 dt.03-07-2025
10/21
petitioner.
17. The learned Senior Counsel has further
argued that when the offence under section 409 of the IPC is
not made out against the petitioner on the basis of the allegation,
then the allegation of having received any pecuniary advantage /
benefit or illegal gratification itself would not survive.
Importing to the provisions of Section 463 of the I.P.C. the
learned Senior Counsel argues that no offence under section 467
of the I.P.C. is made out since in the present case, no forgery
was committed on any of the loan documents by the petitioner
or in fact even by the co-accused persons. The loan documents
were processed in the Bank as it were received from the loanee
and there was no allegation of any defective title in the title
search report. Further, since no material has come to fore
regarding forgery for the purposes of cheating, the rigors of
section 468 would also not be attracted.
18. So far as the allegations under section 471 of
the IPC is concerned, the learned Senior Counsel for the
petitioner submits that the aforesaid section could only be
attracted when a person is using a forged document as genuine
and when he has reason to believe that the said document was in
fact forged. It is submitted that the prosecution has failed to
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.1608 of 2020 dt.03-07-2025
11/21
bring out or point out any document which has been used by the
petitioner as forged, knowing fully well that the document was
forged.
19. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner
submits that with regard to the offence under sections 420 and
120-B of the I.P.C. the F.I.R fails to bring out even prima facie,
any ingredient which could constitute the offence under the
aforesaid provisions. The learned Senior Counsel points out that
it is imperative to state who specifically is the affected party
who has been dishonestly induced to deliver property, in other
words what specific wrongful loss or gain has been caused.
Importing to the essential ingredients for constituting an offence
under section 420 I.P.C. the learned Senior Counsel for the
petitioner argues that the element of dishonest intention must be
there from the very beginning. Thus, it is emphasised by the
learned Senior Counsel that dishonest intention must start from
the inception of the transaction itself. It has been argued that a
person cannot be presumed to be guilty on the basis of loose
allegations particularly when no evidence to show whether the
accused had abetted the offence or entered into conspiracy. It
has also been argued that in the facts of the present case the
instant petitioner could not be held liable for dishonestly
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.1608 of 2020 dt.03-07-2025
12/21
inducing the Bank to deliver the loan amount and hence no case
under section 420 IPC is made out.
20. It has been submitted by learned Senior
Counsel for the petitioner that there is also no material available
on record, directly or indirectly, to even remotely suggest that
the petitioner had conspired with the loanee (co-accused) to
sanction the loan since the petitioner in discharge of her duties,
followed the prescribed procedures and thereafter had
sanctioned the loan.
21. Lastly, the learned Senior Counsel for the
petitioner submits that the petitioner is a responsible Bank
official who in discharge of her official duties had sanctioned
the loan after complying with the prescribed procedures, after
receiving recommendations of the subordinate officials and after
examining the supporting documents. The present criminal case
has solely been set in motion to coerce the Bank into settling the
loan amount. The informant with ulterior motive has merely
concocted a false story in order to safeguard the interests of his
brother and his wife and to prevent the possible auction of the
property in question.
22. A supplementary affidavit has been filed on
behalf of the petitioner to bring on record the current status of
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.1608 of 2020 dt.03-07-2025
13/21
the loan account in the name of ‘Maa Vaishno Sales’ which has
been closed on 21.04.2023 through O.T.S. and the property
paper has been handed over to the mortgager. A certificate
issued by the Chief Manager of Punjab National Bank, Gandhi
Nagar, has been annexed and brought on record.
23. The Informant/Opposite party no.2 has filed
his counter affidavit. In the counter affidavit, the opposite party
no.2 has reiterated the allegations of connivance between the
petitioner and his elder brother (co-accused). It is further
submitted that the petitioner had overlooked report prepared by
the empanelled advocate of the Bank wherein under clause-4, it
was clearly stated that the registration particulars as given under
the title deed shown to the counsel does not tally with the
particulars as stated on the records of the Office of the Registrar.
Furthermore, it is stated that under Clause-13 it is reported that
the mortgaged property was self-acquired property of the
accused however, the very same empanelled advocate in his
certificate dated 30.01.2015 reported that the said property in
question had been purchased from the joint family fund and the
informant – Deepak Kumar had got half of the share in the said
property. It is contended by the opposite party no.2 that had the
petitioner dispassionately examined the records carefully the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.1608 of 2020 dt.03-07-2025
14/21
loan application ought to have been rejected on the ground that
the mortgaged property is not the exclusive property of the
loanee/guarantor.
24. The opposite party no.2 has thereafter
submitted that the petitioner by referring to the
recommendations submitted by the subordinate officers has
merely attempted to shift liability whereas, it was the petitioner
who was the sanctioning authority.
25. I have considered the submissions of the
parties.
26. From the record, it appears that the loan of
Rs.1,30,00,000/- was advanced to the firm through its proprietor
namely, Sunita Devi, after mortgaging the alleged joint family
property belonging to the informant and the husband of the
aforesaid proprietor namely, Sunita Devi. The allegation of the
informant is that the mortgaged property being a joint family
property could not have been mortgaged by his elder brother
namely, Jai Shankar Singh individually and the Bank officials
have connived with his elder brother in advancing the loan. On
the date of occurrence, the petitioner was the Chief Manager of
the Bank and though the loan was finally sanctioned by the
petitioner but initially investigation was done and thereafter
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.1608 of 2020 dt.03-07-2025
15/21
investigation report was submitted and when no
defect/deficiency was pointed out, the Manager (Credit/Loan)
made a recommendation to the present petitioner, who after
carefully perusing the supporting documents and the
recommendation put forth by her subordinates has approved the
loan to the firm.
27. It is not in dispute that after the loan was
declared as N.P.A. the loanee entered into a compromise and the
loan has been finally settled which has been closed on
21.04.2023 through One Time Settlement and the papers for the
mortgaged property have been returned to the loanee and a
certificate in this regard has been issued by the then Chief
Manager of Punjab National Bank, Gandhi Nagar.
28. Sections 471 of the IPC reads as under:-
“471. Using as genuine a forged
document or electronic record.–
Whoever fraudulently or dishonestly uses
as genuine any document or electronic
record which he knows or has reason to
believe to be a forged document or
electronic record, shall be punished in the
same manner as if he had forged such
document or electronic record.”
29. From bare perusal of section 471 of the IPC,
it is clear that forged document must be used as a genuine one.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.1608 of 2020 dt.03-07-2025
16/21
However, from reading of the F.I.R. it is clear that no forged
document has been used as a genuine one by the petitioner. No
document has been brought on record by the informant which is
said to have been used by the petitioner after having full
knowledge that the said document was a forged documents.
Upon going through the allegations levelled in the F.I.R., I am
of the opinion that the offence under section 471 of the IPC is
not made out against the petitioner as the ingredients of
aforesaid section is lacking.
30. Sections 420 and 120-B of the IPC read as
under :-
“420. Cheating and dishonestly inducing
delivery of property.–
Whoever cheats and thereby dishonestly
induces the person deceived to deliver any
property to any person, or to make, alter
or destroy the whole or any part of a
valuable security, or anything which is
signed or sealed, and which is capable of
being converted into a valuable security,
shall be punished with imprisonment of
either description for a term which may
extend to seven years, and shall also be
liable to fine.”
120B. Punishment of criminal conspiracy.–
(1) Whoever is a party to a criminal
conspiracy to commit an offence
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.1608 of 2020 dt.03-07-2025
17/21punishable with death, [imprisonment for
life] or rigorous imprisonment for a term
of two years or upwards, shall, where no
express provision is made in this Code for
the punishment of such a conspiracy, be
punished in the same manner as if he had
abetted such offence.
(2) Whoever is a party to a criminal
conspiracy other than a criminal
conspiracy to commit an offence
punishable as aforesaid shall be punished
with imprisonment of either description for
a term not exceeding six months, or with
fine or with both.]”
31. From the reading of the F.I.R. it appears that
the petitioner has not involved in any act of cheating as she had
simply approved the loan after the documents were verified by
her subordinates. Further, from the reading of the F.I.R. the
petitioner can in no way be connected with the alleged offences.
In my opinion, the offence under sections 420 and 120-B of the
I.P.C. are also not made out. Further, from reading of the F.I.R.
there is not even a whisper of allegation that the present
petitioner had forged any document and therefore, the
ingredients of sections 467 and 468 are also not made out
against the petitioner.
32. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of
Tarina Sen vs. Union of India and Anr. reported as 2024 SCC
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.1608 of 2020 dt.03-07-2025
18/21
OnLine SC 2696 has held in paragraph nos. 11 to 16 as under: –
“11. The facts in the present case are not in
dispute. It is not disputed that the matter
has been compromised between the
borrowers and the Bank. It has also not
been in dispute that, upon payment of the
amount under the OTS, the loan account of
the borrower has been closed.
12. Therefore, the only question would be, as
to whether the continuation of the criminal
proceedings against the present appellants
would be justified or not.
13. At the outset, we may state that we are only
considering the cases of two women i.e.
Accused Nos. 4 and 5. wherein Accused
No. 4 is the wife of Accused No.2. It is also
not in dispute that the original Accused
Nos.2 and 3 have since died.
14. By a separate judgment of the even date in
Criminal Appeal arising out of Special
Leave Petition (Criminal) No.4353 of 2018
wherein similar facts arose for
consideration, we have held that when the
matter has been compromised between the
borrower and Bank, the continuation of the
criminal proceedings would not be
justifiable.
15. Relying on the earlier judgments of this
Court, we have held that in the matters
arising out of commercial, financial,
mercantile, civil, partnership or such like
transactions or the offences arising out of
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.1608 of 2020 dt.03-07-2025
19/21matrimony relating to dowry, etc. or family
disputes where the wrong is basically
private or personal in nature and the
parties have resolved their entire dispute,
the High Court should exercise its powers
under Section 482 CrPC for giving an end
to the criminal proceedings. We have held
that the possibility of conviction in such
cases is remote and bleak and as such, the
continuation of the criminal proceedings
would put the accused to great oppression
and prejudice.
16. We find that for the aforesaid reasons the
present appeals also deserve to be
allowed.”
33. In an another decision, the Hon’ble Supreme
Court in the case of N.S. Ganeshwaran etc. vs. the Inspector of
Police and Anr. reported as 2025 INSC 787 has held in
paragraph nos. 7, 8 and 9 as under:-
“7. Having considered the submissions of both
sides and examined the record, we are of
the view that no useful purpose would be
served by continuing the criminal
proceedings in the present matter. The
dispute has, admittedly, culminated in a
comprehensive One Time Settlement under
which the Bank has received the entire
outstanding amount. The recovery
proceedings before the tribunal have been
dismissed as settled, and no residual claim
survives. The Bank has not raised any
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.1608 of 2020 dt.03-07-2025
20/21objection to the closure of the matter and
has issued formal acknowledgments of
satisfaction.
8. Further, in identical proceedings filed by
the CBI against the appellants in C.C. Nos.
13 of 2006 and 151 of 2010, the charge
sheets were quashed by the High Court
after taking note of the settlement reached
in the recovery proceedings. The special
leave petitions preferred by the State being
SLP (Crl) No. 711 of 2021 and SLP (Crl)
No.825 of 2021 challenging the said
quashing were dismissed by this Court,
rendering the orders final. Since the facts
and legal position are the same in the
present matter, we see no reason why the
appellants should not be given the same
relief.
9. In our view, allowing the present criminal
proceedings to continue would serve no
meaningful purpose, particularly when the
dispute between the parties has already
been resolved through a full and final
settlement. The settlement between the
parties having taken place after the alleged
commission of the offence, and there being
no continuing public interest we see no
justification for allowing the matter to
proceed further.”
34. In the present case also, the dispute between
the parties has been settled through One Time Settlement (OTS)
and subsequent thereto, the loan account in the name of the firm
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.1608 of 2020 dt.03-07-2025
21/21
has been closed on 21.04.2023 and property papers have been
handed over to the mortgager. Therefore, in my opinion, no
useful purpose would be served in allowing to continue the
prosecution against the petitioner in view of the fact that the
dispute around the loan has been settled between the parties.
Moreover, from reading of the F.I.R. no offence, as alleged, is
made out against the petitioner being loan sanctioning authority.
35. For the foregoing reasons, I am of the view
that the present application deserves to be allowed and
accordingly, the same is allowed. Consequently, the impugned
order taking cognizance dated 18.03.2019 passed by the learned
Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Patna City in Agamkuan
P.S. Case No.99 of 2017 as well as the consequential
proceedings arising out of Agamkuan P.S. Case No.99 of 2017
are hereby quashed.
(Sandeep Kumar, J)
pawan/-
AFR/NAFR N.A.F.R. CAV DATE 03.04.2025 Uploading Date 03.07.2025 Transmission Date 03.07.2025