Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 384 (PAT)

Pramod Kumar Chaudhary v. State Of Bihar

2007-02-21

GHANSHYAM PRASAD

body2007
Judgment 1. Heard. This application under sec. 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed to quash the order of cognizance dated 18.6.2006 passed by C.J.M., Supaul in Complaint Case No. 277(C) of 2005 thereby and thereunder the learned court below has taken cognizance under sec. 420 of the I.P.C against the petitioners. 2. It appears that the petitioners are officials of State Bank of India, Agricultural Development Branch, Supaul. The opposite party no.2 took loan from the Bank to the tune of Rs. 2,13,500/- for purchase of tractor alongwith the trailor. The loan was sanctioned by the bank authorities. Thereafter order was placed by the Bank for supply of Swaraj Tractor, Cuttee. Bumper and Trailor in favour of the opposite party no.2. It has been alleged that only tractor alongwith cuttee was delivered to the opposite party no.2 but trailor was never supplied to him. However the Bank authorities also added the amount of trailor in the loan amount dishonestly. Accordingly, a complaint case was lodged before the court of C.J.M., Supaul against the petitioners. After enquiry under sec. 202 Cr.P.C. the court below has taken cognizance against the petitioners. 3. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that entire allegation is false and baseless. The real fact is that the opposite party also received trailor alongwith tractor and got it reregistered in his name bearing No. BR11B/8921. In support of it, the petitioners have filed Annexures 4 and 5. Annexure-4 is the delivery chalan of National Sales Corporation. It would go to show that the trailor was also supplied to the opposite party no.2 alongwith Swaraj Tractor. The delivery chalan bears the signature of opposite party no.2 as well as his two sons. Annexure-5 would go to show that the trailor in question has been registered by the District Transport office in name of opposite party no.2 4. Inspite of service of notice, no one appears on behalf of the opposite party no. 2. 5. Thus, from the above facts and circumstances of the case as well as the documents, it is quite clear that the entire allegation levelled in the complaint petition is false and frivolous. The trailor was also supplied to the petitioners alongwith tractor. Therefore, continuance of this criminal proceeding against the petitioners is a misuse of process of the court. 6. Accordingly, this application is allowed and the impugned order is hereby quashed.