Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 1095 (PAT)

Dusyant Kumar Nayak v. State Of Bihar

2003-10-21

ASHOK KUMAR VERMA

body2003
Judgment Ashok Kumar Verma, J. 1. Cr. Misc. No. 20684 of 1997 and Cr. Misc. No. 21518 of 1997 arise out of the same order and are heard together. Both the cases are disposed of by this common order. On 4.2.1998 it was ordered by another Bench of this Court in Cr. Misc. No. 21518 of 1997 that the application shall be heard alongwith Cr. Misc. No. 20684 of 1997. 2. Cr. Misc. No, 20684 of 1997 had been filed by the petitioner Dusyant Kumar Nayak for quashing the entire criminal proceeding including the order dated 17.2.1997, whereby the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Muzaffarpur had taken cognizance of the case for the offences under Sections 467, 468 420 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, in Complaint Case No. C1534 of 1996 / Tr. No. 663 of 1997. Cr. Misc. No. 21518 of 1997 had been filed by Tapas Kumar Bhattacharjee with the same prayer against the same order. 3. It was argued by the learned lawyer for the petitioners that there is ho material on record against the petitioners for their trial in the case and petitioner Dusyant Kumar Nayak had lodged FIR in respect of robbery committed in Banaso Branch of State Bank of India in the District of Hazaribagh, where he was then posted as Branch Manager and petitioner Tapas Kumar Bhattacharjee was also posted there. It was submitted by him that Dusyant Kumar Nayak had been transferred in the beginning of 1994 from that branch and the occurrence of the present case is of the year 1995. It was also argued by him that it has been alleged that a telephonic information had been received from Surat by the complainant that the bank draft issued from Banaso Branch of the State Bank of India was forged. 4. According to complainant on 15.8.1995 accused Ashok Kumar had gone to the shop of the complainant and placed order for purchase of cloths and at that time he had paid Rs. 1000/- and told to pay the remaining amount by Bank Draft. The complainant asked the accused Ashok Kumar to get the draft prepared in the name of Rajesh Trading Company, Surat as he had to make payment to Rajesh Trading Company. On 18.8.1995 accused Ashok Kumar went to the shop of the complainant and handed over Barik draft of Rs. 1000/- and told to pay the remaining amount by Bank Draft. The complainant asked the accused Ashok Kumar to get the draft prepared in the name of Rajesh Trading Company, Surat as he had to make payment to Rajesh Trading Company. On 18.8.1995 accused Ashok Kumar went to the shop of the complainant and handed over Barik draft of Rs. 49,500/- to him bearing No. MOL A/31- 576942 which had been issued by the State Bank of India, Banaso Branch, Hazaribagh. The complainant had sent draft to Rajesh Trading Company, Surat on 18.8.1995. On 15.8.1996, the complainant received telephonic information from Rajesh Trading Company that the draft was forged and it was one of the drafts which had been looted from Banaso Branch in the year 1993. 5. It was submitted by the learned lawyer of the petitioner that the No. of the draft in question had not been mentioned by the petitioner Dusyant Kumar Nayak in the FIR due to clerical mistake, which was subsequently corrected by him by letter dated 21.9.1993, which is Annexure 2 to the petition. 6. The contention of the learned lawyer for the opposite party No. 2 is that FIR of the case relating to the robbery in the State Bank of India was instituted on the basis of fardbeyan of petitioner Dusyant Kumar Nayak, who was then Branch Manager of that Branch and in the fardbeyan petitioner Dusyant Kumar Nayak had not mentioned the number of the draft which was found to be forged whereas other draft numbers had been mentioned in the fardbeyan. It was also submitted by him that prayer for correction in the number of the draft was made to the officer-in-charge, Vishnugarh Police Station, Hazaribagh on 21.9.1993 by Dusyant Kumar Nayak, after circular was issued by local head office of the State Bank of India, Patna on 18.9,1993 regarding the articles looted on 13.9.1993, which is Annexure 3 of the petition. It was submitted by the learned lawyer for the opposite party No. 2 that the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Muzaffarpur by order dated 29.8.1996 had called for a report from Banaso Branch of State Bank of India Hazaribagh whether any case of theft or loot has been lodged by the manager of the Branch as well as regarding the genuineness of the said draft which had been issued from his office and report had been received from the State Bank of India, Banaso Branch, District Hazaribagh, which is Annexure 6 to the petition that the draft No.MOL A/31 -576942 dated 17.8.1995, which is the main issue of the case is not issued from that Branch and the said draft is of those blank security forms looted from that branch in the bank dacoity committed on 13.9.1993 and the information regarding the loss of the concerned security forms had been circulated vide their H.O. Circular No. 94 of 93-94 for exercising extra care in paying any draft purported to be issued by the branch. 7. According to the FIR of Vishnugarh P.S. Case No. 87 of 1993 dated 13.9.1993 the petitioner Dusyant Kumar Nayak was the Branch Manager of State Bank of India Banaso Branch, Hazaribagh and petitioner Tapas Kumar Bhattacharjee was clerk- cum-cashier in the said bank. It has been held by the Supreme Court in the case of State of Haryana and others V/s. Bhajan Lal and others reported in 1992 Supp (1) Supreme Court Cases 335 that the power of quashing a criminal proceeding should be exercised very sparingly and with circumspection and that too in the rarest of rare cases and the Court will not be justified in embarking upon an enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the FIR or the complaint. 8. In the facts and circumstances of the case, there does not appear any reason to interfere with the impugned order. Both the petitions are accordingly dismissed.