1 2025:CGHC:22560-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 4 of 2022 1 Rahul Kumar Sinha S/o Shri Murari Mohan Sinha, Aged About 40 Years Occupation Senior Manager, Bank Of Baroda, Branch Korba, R/o Gulab Nagar Mopka, Police Station Sarkanda, Tahsil And District Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh), District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 State Of Chhattisgarh Through District Magistrate Bilaspur, District Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh), District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 2 Suresh Yadav S/o Premlal Yadav Aged About 43 Years R/o 27 Kholi Indrasen Nagar, Mangla, Police Station Civil Line Bilaspur, District Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Applicant(s) : Shri Sourav Agrawal on behalf of Shri Ratnesh Agrawal, Advocate For Respondent/ State : Shri Hari Om Rai, P.L. Hon’ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon’ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice JYOTI SHARMA Digitally signed by JYOTI SHARMA Date: 2025.06.13 12:11:06 +0530 2 09/06/2025 1. The present petition has been filed by the applicant for quashment of order dated 17.12.2021 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Bilaspur in Criminal Revision No. 155/2021. 2. Prosecution story, in brief, is that, the applicant, who is branch manager of R.K. Nagar, Branch of Bank of Baroda, sanctioned unauthorized loan of Rs. 60 lakhs while discharging his official duty and has committed fraud with the bank. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant vehemently submits that the applicant was a branch manager of R.K. Nagar, Branch of Bank of Baroda and sanctioned loan of Rs. 60 Lakhs while discharging his official duty. He further submits that he has sanctioned the loan as per the report of the scrutiny committee and moreover he submits that the permission has not been sought under the Section 197 of the CRPC by the competent authority as the applicant is the public servant. Therefore, he prays that the charges framed against the applicant be quashed. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State submits that the unauthorized sanction of loan by the applicant cannot be considered as discharge of his official duty. 5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties; perused the documents on record and the order passed by the Trial court. 6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the opinion that as far as the issue with respect to sanction under Section 197 of the CRPC is concerned, the same was not raised 3 before the revisional court and the same can be very well considered during the course of Trial. Further, the sanction of the unauthorized loan cannot be termed as discharging of official duty. 7. From bare perusal of the material available on record, it is manifest that the applicant in connivance with other accused persons hatched a criminal conspiracy and used the land documents of the complainant and on the basis of the same sanctioned loan of Rs. 60 Lakhs in the name of Aditya Acqua Culture Firm, which is not in existence. It is also alleged that two persons namely Aditya and Mohnish Kurre have been made as partners of the said firm that too without their knowledge. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, this Court cannot interfere with the impugned order passed by the revisional court at this juncture. Even otherwise, since the applicant is the officer of a nationalized bank, who is the custodian of public money and hence the bank officials are required to discharge their duties with due diligence and sincerity. 8. In the result, the present CRMP, being devoid of merits is liable to be and is dismissed. 9. Consequently, the interim protection granted earlier stands vacated. Sd/- Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Jyoti/ Amar