Research › Search › Judgment

Calcutta High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 118 (CAL)

Reba Roychoudhury v. Titash Roychowdhury

2008-01-25

ASHIM KUMAR ROY

body2008
Judgment 1. Heard, Mr. Joymalya Bagchi, the learned advocate, appearing with Mr. Avishek Sinha on behalf of the petitioners as well as Mr. Tirthankar Ghosh, learned advocate, appearing on behalf of the State. Perused the materials on record and the Case Diary. 2. In the instant criminal revisional application the petitioners sought for quashing of a charge-sheet relating to Lake Town Police Station Case No. 301 dated 5.12.2004 under Sections 420/406/468/471/34 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. Mr. Bagchi, the learned advocate, appearing on behalf of the petitioners submitted before this Court that the sum and substance of the allegations as it transpires from the First Information Report is that after the death of Tapas Ranjan Roy Chowdhury, the father of the complainant, the complainant demanded from the accused persons his shares in respect of the business jointly carried on by his deceased father and the said accused persons and also requested them to produce all the relevant papers relating to the said business as well as the bank pass books, relating to their joint accounts share certificates, cash certificates which were standing jointly in the name of the father of the complainant and the said accused no. 2. But inspite of repeated demand the accused persons pay no heed to the request of the complainant and they hatched up a criminal conspiracy to cheat the complainant and withdrew all the amount from the Bank, lying in the joint account of the father of the complainant and the accused no. 2. Ultimately at the later part of the year 2003 the said accused persons flatly refused to show those documents to the complainant. Thereafter, the complainant after great efforts able to trace out the details of the aforesaid joint Bank accounts and found that accused no. 2 Reba Roy Chowdhury withdrew the entire money from the bank account including the share of the complainant’s father without intimating the bank about his death and in some places the accused no. 3 Dipanjan Roy Chowdhury represented him as the son of Tapas Ranjan Roy Chowdhury and as his legal heirs and gave his consent against such withdrawal. Mr. 2 Reba Roy Chowdhury withdrew the entire money from the bank account including the share of the complainant’s father without intimating the bank about his death and in some places the accused no. 3 Dipanjan Roy Chowdhury represented him as the son of Tapas Ranjan Roy Chowdhury and as his legal heirs and gave his consent against such withdrawal. Mr. Bagchi in support of his prayer for quashing submitted before this Court since the bank account as well as the debenture certificates, bonds are all standing in the joint names, therefore by withdrawing any amount out of the said bank account, bonds and debentures the present petitioners cannot be said to have committed any offence. According to Mr. Bagchi by operating the said accounts and thereby withdrawing the money lying therein the petitioners cannot be said to have committed any offence. He further submitted that from the police papers nothing has been disclosed as against the petitioner nos. 2 and 3. On the other hand, Mr. Tirthankar Ghosh, the learned advocate appearing on behalf of the State by producing the Case Diary in his usual fairness submitted before this Court that going through the materials collected by the police during the course of investigation, forming the part of the charge-sheet nothing has been found as against the petitioner nos. 2 and 3. 4. I have given my anxious consideration to the rival submissions of the learned advocates appearing on behalf of the parties. In my opinion, although either of the joint holder of any bank account has every right to operate such bank account independently or to encash any bond or cash certificate standing in their joint names even during their life time or after the death of either of the joint holders, when there is specific instruction as regards to the operation of such account by either of them still then unless such person is the legal heirs of the other joint holder after withdrawal of the money from the bank account or encashment of the bond shall hold the same as a mere custodian thereof and if it is found that such amount of money has been converted to his own use or has been misappropriated by the surviving account holder he shall certainly be guilty of criminal breach of trust. As such in the present case when upon consideration of the evidentiary materials collected by the police during the course of investigation it prima facie appears that the accused no. 2, one of the joint account holder after the death of the father of the defacto-complainant withdrew the entire amount of money from their joint bank account and by encashing the bonds and cash certificates converted the said amount of money to his own use and misappropriated the same it cannot be said that no offence of criminal breach of trust has been committed by her and as such no question of quashing of the charge-sheet at all arises. Since admittedly no materials against the petitioner nos. 2 and 3 has been found by the police during the investigation charge-sheet as against them is liable to be quashed. In the result the instant criminal revisional application stands allowed as far as the petitioner no. 2 and 3 are concerned and the charge-sheet as against them stands quashed. However, the prayer for quashing of the charge-sheet as against the petitioner no. 1 is rejected and the instant criminal revision as far as the petitioner no. 1 stands dismissed.