Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 732 (JHR)

Rabindra Prasad Sah v. State Of Jharkhand

2006-06-21

RAKESH RANJAN PRASAD

body2006
ORDER R.R. Prasad, J. 1. Heard learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners, learned Counsel appearing for the State and learned Counsel appearing for the opposite party No. 2. 2. This application filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is for quashing the entire criminal proceeding of C.P. Case No. 831 of 2001 pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Dhanbad including the order dated 4.12.2002 passed by Shri R.K. Singh, Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Dhanbad, whereby cognizance of the offences under Sections 468, 471, 420 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, has been taken against the petitioners. 3. The case of the complainant as has been given in the complaint petition is that the complainant was holding an SB A/c bearing No. 6706/42 in the United Commercial Bank, Moonidih Branch, Dhanbad and apart from that his wife is also having current account and the complainant had also a fixed deposit for Rs. 20,000/- with the aforesaid-Bankand it happens so that on 23.4.2001 the complainant approached the BankJ:o_wjthdraw ,Rs. 12,000/- from his account and tendered withdrawal slip and them the bank official after observing all the formalities gave Rs. 12,000/- from the cash counter. After taking money he returned home. On the next date i.e. on 24.4.2001 while the complainant was on his duty the Branch Manager and the Cashier of the Bank came over there and took him to the Bank forcibly where they told him that he has been paid Rs. 22,000/- instead of Rs. 12,000/-, to which he denied, but they took signature on a printed paper with a plea that the same should be returned within a week. Further case is that on 26.4.2001 when his wife came to Bank she was threatened by the petitioners with dire consequences and therefore the complainant and his wife came to Bank on the next date and asked for the said printed form, but they did not give it back to him and threatened for the dire consequences and told that the said document produced will be used for taking out the money from the fixed deposit and the other account. Thus it was alleged that the petitioners committed offence under Sections 409, 420, 467, 468, 120 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code. 4. Thus it was alleged that the petitioners committed offence under Sections 409, 420, 467, 468, 120 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code. 4. After the statement of the complainant was recorded on solemn affirmation the manner was taken up for inquiry and in course of the inquiry witnesses were examined. Thereafter learned Magistrate vide order dated 4.12.2002 did hold that there has been sufficient ground on record to proceed with the case under Sections 468, 471, 420 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code and the petitioners were summoned to face trial. 5. Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that even if the statement made in the complaint petition as well as statement made by the witnesses during inquiry, are taken to be true no offence is made out, under which cognizance of the offences has been taken and that there has also been no allegation to the effect that the alleged document, upon which signature of the complainant was taken forcibly was converted into a valuable security, rather the petitioners apprehension that the Bank on the basis of the document would withdraw the amount lying in the fixed deposit, is quite baseless as the matured amount lying under the fixed deposit has been paid to the complainant and as such the entire allegation is malafide and the case has been filed to harass the petitioners and if the prosecution is allowed to be continued that would amount abuse of the process of the Court. Learned Counsel further submits that as soon as it was detected that instead of Rs. 12,000/- - Rs. 22,000/- has been paid. The petitioner No. 2 took the loan from the Bank and got it deposited in order to adjust the short fall and this is evident from Annexure 3 and hence the entire criminal proceeding needs to be quashed. 6. As against this, learned Counsel for the opposite party No. 2 submits that the petitioners withdrew a sum of Rs. 12,000/-from the Bank, but the Bank official is falsely making the allegation that the petitioners instead of Rs. 12,000/- took away Rs. 22,000/- and on account of that the petitioners made the complainant to sign a printed form and therefore the petitioners can certainly be said to have committed offence. 7. 12,000/-from the Bank, but the Bank official is falsely making the allegation that the petitioners instead of Rs. 12,000/- took away Rs. 22,000/- and on account of that the petitioners made the complainant to sign a printed form and therefore the petitioners can certainly be said to have committed offence. 7. Having heard counsel for the parties and on perusal of the record, I do find that the dispute, as to whether the petitioners took away Rs. 22,000/- or Rs. 12,000/- as per the withdrawal slip, laid filing of the complaint. There has been nothing in the complaint petition to show that in what manner the complainant was deceived, there has been no averment by the complainant that the petitioners induced him fraudulently or dishonestly for the purpose of deceiving him to deliver up any property and as such no offence either under Sections 406 or under Section 420 is made out. At the same time, nothing is there to come to the conclusion prima facie that the petitioners did commit forgery for the purpose of cheating, as in the face of the allegation made in the complaint petition, it is not the allegation against the petitioners that they forged any document. Moreover, the allegation that the complainant was forced to sign a document cannot fulfill the ingredients of offence of forgery definition of which has been given in Section 463 and therefore no offence is made out either under Section 468 or 471 of the Indian Penal Code. Coming further I do find that the complainant in his complaint petition has also averred that when the wife of the complainant came to Bank for withdrawing money the petitioners threatened her with dire consequences, which injured her reputation. It be stated that the most important ingredients of the offence of criminal intimidation is that there should be an intention to cause alarm or to cause the person threatened to do any act which he is not legally bound to do. In the instant case, it has been alleged that the accused threatened with dire consequences, but this would not suffice for attracting offence of criminal intimidation. 8. In the instant case, it has been alleged that the accused threatened with dire consequences, but this would not suffice for attracting offence of criminal intimidation. 8. In the circumstances, I do find that the allegation on the basis of which the prosecution has been launched, does not constitute any offence and hence if the entire criminal proceeding is allowed to be proceeded with that would amount as an abuse of the process of the law and hence the entire criminal proceeding of C.P. Case No. 831 of 2001 pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Dhanbad and the order dated 4.12.2002 taking cognizance of the offences under Sections 468, 471, 420 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code is hereby quashed so far petitioners are concerned.