Page No.# 1/6 GAHC010186102025 2026:GAU-AS:12864 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Crl.Pet./1045/2025 RAJU DAS SON OF LT. HARA NATH DAS, RESIDENT OF NAMGHAR PATH, HOUSE NO. 4, OPPOSITE ADMINISTRATIVE STAFF COLLEGE, KHANAPARA, P.S. DISPUR, DIST.- KAMRUP (M), GUWAHATI- 781022 VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR REPRESENTED BY THE LD. P.P., ASSAM 2:NITAI CHANDRA DAS SON OF LT. GOPAL DAS THE THEN ZONAL MANAGER OF PANJAB AND SIND BANK ZONAL OFFICE RESIDENT OF VASANT KUNJ APARTMENT 3A VASANT KUNJ BORTHAKUR MILL ROAD ULUBARI GUWAHATI- 0 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. S B LASKAR, MR. A S TAPADER,MS D DUTTA,MR. H A LASKAR Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE SHAMIMA JAHAN ORDER 03.09.2026 Heard Mr S B Laskar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr R J Baruah, Page No.# 2/6 learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State of Assam. 2. It is seen in the Office Note that the service upon the respondent No. 2 has been complete, but no one had represented the respondent No. 2 on earlier occasion too, as well as today. As such, the matter is taken up for final disposal today. 3. By this application under Section 528 of the BNSS, 2023, the petitioner has prayed for quashing of the FIR being registered as BI(EO) Police Station FIR No. 17 of 2019 as well as the charge sheet submitted pursuant to the lodging of the FIR on 31.03.2021 and the subsequent orders passed in the PRC Case No. 1422 of 2021. 4. The case of the petitioner is that an FIR was lodged on 28.11.2019 by the Zonal Manager of Punjab and Sind Bank, stating inter alia, that a loan was availed by M/s Joy Construction and the proprietor of the said firm was Sri Gangadhar Kalita and the said loan was availed from Punjab and Sind Bank, which was availed according to the informant by fraudulent means. It is further stated in the FIR that the proprietor of the M/s Joy Construction had applied for an overdraft against property limit of Rs. 2 crores at Rajgarh Road Branch for business purpose. The overdraft limit was secured by way of mortgage of a plot of land measuring 2 Bighas 1 Katha and 3 Lechas covered by Dag No. 817 and Patta No 1941, situated at Tetelia Mouza-Jalukbari, in the district of Kamrup in the name of Gangadhar Kalita. It is also stated that the sanctioning authority, which includes the Branch Manager as well as the Loan Officer, had failed to compare the certified copy of the Title Deed submitted by the borrower and failed to ensure the Page No.# 3/6 genuineness of the same. It was later found out that the title deeds submitted by the proprietor of M/s Joy Construction, was forged and fake. 5. As such, a case was registered against M/s Joy Construction, owned by Sri Gangadhar Kalita, and as well as the bank officials. The Police conducted the investigation and on completion of the same, had submitted charge sheet on 31.03.2021, vide Charge Sheet No. 1/01/2021. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner had no role in allowing the loan to M/s Joy Construction and that under the guidelines of Punjab and Sind Bank, it was specifically stated that it will be the responsibility of the Branch Manager to ensure that property assets are rightly mortgaged/charged in favour of the Bank and genuineness of the title deeds must be ensured. It is as such seen that the Branch Manager is entirely responsible for the task of checking the title deeds to find out that rightfully the mortgage is done. It is also the responsibility of the Branch Manager to see that there are no encumbrances on the property mortgaged. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is the Zonal Manager of Punjab and Sind Bank at the relevant point of time. The learned counsel has also submitted that a Zonal Level Credit Approval Committee was constituted and the said Committee in its meeting dated 07.09.2014, had opined that ODP limit of Rs. 2 crores and BG limit of Rs. 50 lacs was allowed to M/s Joy Construction (Proprietor- Sri Gangadhar Kalita), at the interest rate against the property under multipurpose business loan under certain terms Page No.# 4/6 and conditions, recommended by the said Committee. The learned counsel submits that the petitioner was a part of the said committee. Further, he also submits that by letter dated 07.10.2014, addressed to the Branch Manager of Punjab and Sind Bank, he had intimated that the loan be granted to M/s Joy Construction after a complete appraisal of the documents. He also submits that in the charge sheet submitted in the instant case no specific charge was mentioned against the petitioner. He, as such, submits that the petitioner is no way connected with the offence in question. He has also placed that the petitioner has retired from service on 29.02.2020, as Assistant General Manager of Punjab and Sind Bank, Head Office-Inspection Department, Gurugram, Delhi National Capital Region (NCR). It is also stated by the learned counsel that the petitioner had continued as the Zonal Manager of the Bank for Guwahati Zone, w.e.f. 27.12.2013 to 06.10.2016. 7. Mr R J Baruah, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State of Assam, by relying on the Case Diary of the case, has stated that it was the petitioner who had sanctioned the loan without proper checking and verifying the documents, papers etc. and that he had not properly verified the proposal submitted by the Branch Officer of the Punjab and Sind Bank. He has also stated that the petitioner did not check the fact of the case that the said title deed was mortgaged to another Bank, i.e., the Union Bank of India, Chandmari Branch. He submits that the petitioner was involved in the offence of giving loan to the firm, i.e., M/s Joy Construction, resulting in the loss of around crores of rupees to the Bank. Page No.# 5/6 8. I have heard the learned counsels appearing on behalf of both the parties and I have gone through the records. 9. It is seen that in the FIR lodged by the Zonal Manager of Punjab and Sind Bank, allegations were against the then Branch Manager as well as the Loan Officer of the Punjab and Sind Bank. There was no allegation against the petitioner who was working as the Zonal Manager of the said Bank. Further, in the charge sheet, apart from making the petitioner as an accused person, no specific materials were put up by the Investigating Officer against the petitioner. It is also seen in the guidelines that it was the Branch Manager, who will be responsible in verifying the documents as well as the title deeds presented by the customers for availing loans. Further, it has also been noticed that a letter was issued on 29.07.2019 by the Zonal Manager, addressed to the AGM (Inspection), Punjab and Sind Bank, stating, inter alia, that in respect of the petitioner who retired on 29.02.2020, no show cause notice or charge sheet or Court case is pending during his tenure as Zonal Manager at Guwahati, from 27.12.2013 to 06.10.2016. It was also stated that no serious financial irregularities or lapses were found in the inspection reports with regard to the petitioner in question. It be reiterated here that the charge sheet was filed much after the petitioner had worked as Zonal Manager in the said Bank at Guwahati Branch and also much after his retirement. 10. In view of the said facts and circumstances, this Court deems it fit to quash the FIR being BI(EO) Police Station FIR No. 17/2019, lodged on 28.11.2019, together with the Page No.# 6/6 charge sheet being Charge Sheet No. 01/2021, submitted on 31.03.2021, along with the PRC Case No. 1422 of 2021, with all the subsequent orders passed in the said case with regard to the petitioner. As such, the FIR, the charge sheet, the PRC Case and the subsequent orders, qua the petitioner, stand quashed. 11. The Criminal Petition stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant