Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 1202 (PAT)

Sidh Nath Rai v. State Of Bihar

2007-07-24

ABHIJIT SINHA

body2007
Judgment ABHIJIT SINHA, J. 1. Through this application under Sec. 482 Cr.P.C. the four petitioners herein, who have been arrayed as accused in Complaint Case No. 497(C) of 2006 and against whom cognizance has been taken under Sec. 417 I.P.C. on 21.7.2006 by Sri C.N. Jha, Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Danapur, have prayed for quashing of the whole proceeding as against them. 2. One Surendra Rai, O.P. No. 2 herein, filed the aforesaid complaint case against the four petitioners herein and the Branch Manager, Punjab National Bank, Bocha Chauk Branch inter alia stating that his aunt Balkeshia Devi who lived jointly with him and was the Karta of the family died issueless on 20.4.1989, her husband having predeceased her, and her sharadh and other rituals were performed by him and he and his brothers were the successors-in-interest of all her immovable and movable properties after her death. It is said that after her death the complainants father applied to the aforesaid bank to pay to him whatever money was available in her account wherein she had deposited certain sums after selling her lands during her life- time as also the amount outstanding in her fixed deposit account and the application was kept pending for inquiry. It is said that during the pendency thereof the four accused persons who belonged to the Naihar of the deceased came on 1.3.2006 and misrepresented to the complainant and his father that the passbook and fixed deposit receipts were required by the bank people for purposes of the pending inquiry and accordingly all the requisite papers were handed over to them. It is alleged that the complainant had learnt from trustworthy people that the accused persons in connivance and conspiracy with the bank employees and under fraudulent misrepresentation as being the heirs and legal representatives of deceased Balkeshia Devi had taken out Rs. 70,000/- from the bank whereupon he went to the house of the accused demanding the money taken out from the bank but he was abused, assaulted and threatened. Thereafter it is said that the complainant went to the bank and on making inquiry came to learn that the bank had handed over the money on the basis of a fabricated document. It is also said that the complainant went to the police station who refused to entertain or register a case whereupon the complaint was filed. 3. Thereafter it is said that the complainant went to the bank and on making inquiry came to learn that the bank had handed over the money on the basis of a fabricated document. It is also said that the complainant went to the police station who refused to entertain or register a case whereupon the complaint was filed. 3. It has been submitted on behalf of as the petitioners that they are innocent and are being sought to be prosecuted out of malice and vengeance on the basis of an improbable story. It was further sought to be pointed out that although the cause of action is said to have arise on 24.4.1989 the complainant was filed after 18 years and any cognizance after such a long period was an abuse of the process of Court. 4. I am unable to accept the submission advanced by the learned counsel for petitioners who claims the cause of action for the alleged crime to be the date of death of Balkeshia Devi and not the day when the accused allegedly came to the house of the complainant I.e. 1.3.2006 and asked for the relevant papers pertaining to the Bank Accounts. This is because no act, either overt or otherwise was resorted to by the petitioners following the death of Balkeshia and it was only on 1.3.2006 that some act happened. 5. The other submissions on behalf of the petitioners is that the petitioner no.1 had obtained a Succession Certificate in his favour from the Administrator General on 30.1.2006 and, therefore, they cannot be said to have committed the offence of cheating. Whether the succession certificate was genuine or obtained fraudulently as alleged by the complainant and whether the bank had acted on the basis of fraudulent documents, are all questions of fact which cannot be looked into at this stage and can only be seen and gauged at the trial. In such circumstances the High Court cannot interfere and nip in the bud the case of complainant which is to be proved after full dress trial. 6. In the facts and circumstances of the case I do not find this is to be an appropriate case where the power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. ought to be exercised. Accordingly this application is dismissed.