Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2004 DIGILAW 212 (MP)

UNION BANK OF INDIA v. BHARAT BHUSHAN PAL VERMA

2004-03-04

S.K.PANDE

body2004
ORDER S.K. Pande, J. By this petition u/s 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, the petitioners request for quashing of proceedings in Cr. Case No. 80/03 pending in the court of MFC, Jabalpur. Respondent Bharat Bhushan Pal Verma, advocate borrowed some money from the local Branch of Union Bank of India. Since the dues were not liquidated, the Bank was obliged to file C.S. No. 276-A/94 before the ADJ, Jabalpur. The suit has been decreed vide judgment dated 9-2-2001 (Annexure A/1). In the suit aforesaid it was contended that the Bank was obliged to seek insurance of the crusher concerned. The amount of premium although was withdrawn from the account of the respondent, was not paid to the insurer. This resulted into pecuniary loss to the respondent. In C.S. No. 276-A/94 it was held that the Bank was not under obligation to seek insurance in respect of the crusher installation of the respondent. In pursuance of judgment decree (Annexure A/1-A) the Bank presented the decree before the D.R.T. for execution and notice (Annexure A/2) has been issued to the respondent. The respondent filed complaint (Annexure A/3) against the petitioner U.B. Rairikar, the then Assistant General Manager and other officers of the Branch of the Bank that from his account during the period from 25-5-1982 to 28-8-1987 amount was debited by the Bank towards payment of the premium of insurance. However, the amount being not paid to the insurer, was retained by the Bank dishonestly. On examining the respondent, the M.F.C. vide order dated 25-1-2003 registered Cr. Case No. 80/03 under sections 409, 420, 120B of Indian Penal Code against petitioner U.B. Rairikar and other officers of the Bank concerned. Further, the MFC directed issuance of process against the petitioner U.B. Rairikar, Deputy General Manager, Union Bank of India, Regional Officer, Varanasi. It is submitted that consequent to the notice of demand issued by D.R.T. on the basis of judgment-decree in C.S. No. 276-A/94, as a counter blast, respondent preferred to file fake and malicious complaint (Annexure A/3) against the petitioner U.B. Rairikar who was not at all concerned with the sanction and Regulation of loan to the respondent by local Branch of the Bank. The transaction with the Branch relates to the period from 25-5-1982 to 28-8-1987. Petitioner U.B. Rairikar was Assistant General Manager Jabalpur during the period from 15-1-2001 to 14-1-2003. The transaction with the Branch relates to the period from 25-5-1982 to 28-8-1987. Petitioner U.B. Rairikar was Assistant General Manager Jabalpur during the period from 15-1-2001 to 14-1-2003. Petitioner U.B. Rairikar as an officer has a supervisory duty over the Bank through its officers only. The actual operation of the account was neither directly supervised nor has been dealt by him personally. Therefore, the request is to quash the proceedings of Cr. Case No. 80/03, as against him pending before M.F.C., Jabalpur. It is contended that the Bank having debited amount from the account of the respondent did not pay the same to the insurer. As such every officer of the bank shall be held responsible for its dishonestly debiting and misappropriation. In reply of the application for vacating stay the petitioner contended that the Bank after debiting the amount from the account sent the insurance premium to the Oriental Insurance Company Jabalpur for insurance. Sine the matter relating to the sum so debited, can still be agitated before D.R.T. in response to the notice of demand (Annexure A/2), it cannot be said that the petitioner Bank misappropriated the amount aforesaid debited from the account of the respondent. In M/s. Medchl Chemicals and Pharma P. Ltd. Vs. M/s. Biological E. Ltd. and Others, , it has been held that complaint has to be examined as a whole without going into the merits of the allegations made therein. If a prima facie case is made out disclosing the ingredients of the offence alleged against the accused, Court should not quash the complaint. But if the allegations do not constitute any offence as alleged and appear to be patently absurd and improbable, Court should not hesitate to quash the complaint. In State of Haryana and others Vs. Ch. Bhajan Lal and others, , this Court has been empowered to exercise the inherent jurisdiction u/s 482 of Criminal Procedure Code where the allegations made in the report-complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused. The grievance of the respondent is that during the period 25-5-1982 to 28-8-1987 the officers of the Branch debited some amount from the account of the respondent for payment of premium towards the insurance. However, the same has not been sent to the insurer. The grievance of the respondent is that during the period 25-5-1982 to 28-8-1987 the officers of the Branch debited some amount from the account of the respondent for payment of premium towards the insurance. However, the same has not been sent to the insurer. The amount aforesaid or any liability of not getting the crusher insured may be a subject matter of civil liability against the Bank and may be agitated before the D.R.T. in response to the notice of demand (Annexure A/2). However in any case petitioner U.B. Rairikar the then Assistant General Manager cannot be said to be person liable for prosecution u/s 409, 420, 120B of Indian Penal Code. He was not in-charge of the Branch nor had any occasion to deal with the account of the respondent. His work was to supervise over the Bank through its officers. He was posted at Jabalpur during the period from 15-1-2001 to 14-1-2003 and had nothing to do with the transaction with the local Branch during the period 25-5-1982 to 28-8-1987. Had this fact been brought to the notice of the M.F.C. the complaint must not have been registered against the petitioner. Further proceedings of complaint against the petitioner would be manifestly attended with mala fide and ulterior motive for wreacking vengeance on him. The proceedings would be an abuse of process of court. Consequently, petition u/s 482 of Criminal Procedure Code succeeds and is allowed. Proceedings in Cr. Case No. 80/03 pending before the MFC, Jabalpur so far it relates to petitioner U.B. Rairikar are quashed. Final Result : Allowed