Ritu Parasher v. State of Maharashtra

The Cyber Blog IndiaCase Summary

Petition to quash an FIR for illegal sanction of loans from a cooperative bank

Ritu Parasher v. State of Maharashtra
In the High Court of Bombay
Crl. W.P. 413/2018
Before Justice Z.A. Haq and Justice M.G. Giratkar
Decided on November 26, 2019

Relevancy of the Case: Petition to quash an FIR for illegal sanction of loans from a cooperative bank

Statutes and Provisions Involved

  • The Information Technology Act, 2000 (Section 65)
  • The Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Section 406, 408, 409, 467, 468, 471, 420, 201, 120B, 109, 34)
  • The Maharashtra Protection of Interest of Depositors Act, 1999 (Section 3, 4)
  • The Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960 (Section 83)

Relevant Facts of the Case

  • The petitioner, a Medical Practitioner, was a Director of Samta Sahakari Bank Ltd., a cooperative society from March 1994 to March 2000.
  • The police filed an FIR on November 15, 2007, against thirty individuals, including the petitioner, for various offences under the provisions given above.
  • The petitioner filed this petition seeking to quash the FIR, charge sheet dated June 30, 2010, and Regular Criminal Case 2190/2008, asserting her innocence and requesting discharge from prosecution.
  • An Enquiry Officer under Section 83 of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960, found irregularities in the bank’s functioning. The Officer’s findings specifically mentioned the involvement of the Chief Executive Officer and Chairman in illegal loan sanctions.
  • In a subsequent report, the Authorised Officer under Section 88 exonerated the petitioner from direct or indirect involvement. The Officer concluded that she was not responsible for the loss caused to the bank.

Prominent Arguments by the Advocates

  • The petitioner’s counsel argued that the Enquiry Officer did not find the petitioner responsible for illegal sanctions.
  • The respondent’s counsel argued that there is ample material against the petitioner for prosecution, and the court should not exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction.

Opinion of the Bench

  • There is no prima facie case against the petitioner for prosecution under these provisions. Moreover, the offence under Section 3 of the Maharashtra Protection of Interest of Depositors Act, 1999 is not made out.

Final Decision

  • The bench quashed the FIR registered against the petitioner while granting a deferment of eight weeks for the effect, operation and implementation of this judgment on the respondent’s request.

Aditi Mangesh Sawant, an undergraduate student at NMIMS Kirit P Mehta School of Law, Mumbai, prepared this case summary during her internship with The Cyber Blog India in January/February 2024.