Criminal complaint for forgery, fabrication of valuable security by officials of a nationalsed bank
Kishor Satwick
(Querist) 08 April 2012
This query is : Resolved
The Bank fabricated letter of guarante and interpolated DP note. The DRT even though prima facie acknowledges the fact of interpolation, etc., gives the order in favour of bank. Letter of Guarantee and DP note are valuable securities u/s. 30 of IPC. Forgery, fabrication, interpolation there of is punishable for a term up to life u/s. 467 of the IPC.
The questions are as follows:
1. Whether DRT is a Court for the purpose of sections 191, 192, 193, 196, 197, 198 and 200 of IPC?
2. Whether a private complaint under sections 405/406, 415/420, 463, 464, 467, 468, 469, 470 and 471 r/w ss. 34, 120A and 120B of IPC can be filed before the Magistrate independant of sections 191, 192, etc.?
3. If sanction of DRT is required to proceed u/ss. 191, 192, 193, 196, 197, 198, 199, 200 of IPC, what is the procedure for obtaining the sanction of DRT?
4. Even though the complaint has been filed with the concerned police station, they have not yet registered the FIR and started investigation. If Police are going slow in registering the FIR against the officials of a nationalsed bank, what is the remedy?
Raj Kumar Makkad
(Expert) 08 April 2012
1. No.
2. Yes.
3. No sanction is required to this purpose.
4. File a complaint with the trial magistrate of the area under section 200 of criminal procedure code and enclose an application under section 156 (3) Criminal Procedure code.
Guest
(Expert) 08 April 2012
I endorse the advice of Shri Makkad.
Shonee Kapoor
(Expert) 08 April 2012
I also endorse views of Ld. makkad.
Regards,
Shonee Kapoor
harassed.by.498a@gmail.com
Kishor Satwick
(Querist) 09 April 2012
Dear Mr Makkad
Can you please elaborate on my questions, particularly question 1 and 2 with case laws?
Regards
Kishor Satwick
Kishor Satwick
(Querist) 13 April 2012
DRT is not a court and this is well settled by the Supreme Court in various judgments including the latest one in Nahar Industrial Enterprises Ltd v/s. Hong Kong and Shanghai Banking Corporation CA No. 4796 of 2009 [2009(8) SCC].However, the Supreme Court in the said judgments has also made the following observations:
Sub-section (3) of section 22 of the Recovery Of Debts Due To Banks And Financial Institutions Act 1993 raises a legal fiction that the proceeding before the Tribunal or the Appellate Tribunal shall be deemed to be a judicial proceeding within the meaning of Sections 193 and 228 and for all the purposes of Section 196 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The very fact that a legal fiction has been created and the Tribunal or the Appellate Tribunal shall be deemed to be a civil court for purposes of Section 195 and Chapter XXVI of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1973, itself suggests that the Parliament did not intend to take away the jurisdiction of the civil court. In any event, the said legal faction has a limited application.
In the light of this, I request the eminent panelist to advise on my questions.
DEFENSE ADVOCATE.-firmaction@g
(Expert) 13 April 2012
DRT is just a tribunal created under MOF for speedy recovery of bank loans and so as a routine orders are passed in favor of lenders.
If you are not satisfied you have following options.
1) Go to DART in appeal with your evidence.
2) There after to HC if the verdict is not as per evidence.
3) File a private complaint with request for registration of FIR and can go in revision if there is no order first to sessions court and than in writ to HC or directly to HC.
PROVIDED YOU HAVE PROPER EVIDENCE WHICH CAN STAND THE SCRUTINY OF COURTS IN TERMS OF LAW CRIMINAL AND CIVIL.
