Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 1660 (PAT)

Vinod Pandey v. State of Bihar

2008-11-20

body2008
ORDER All these four cases have been taken up together since the complainant, the petitioner and the subject matter in all these four cases are the same and having been heard together are being disposed of by this common order. 2. The complainant in all these four cases is the Infrastructure Development Authority through Sri Birendra Pratap Singh (hereinafter referred to as "the Authority") and the accused in all the four cases are Vinod Pandey, the Assistant Manager, State Bank of India, Secretariat Branch and the Branch Manager, State Bank of India, Secretariat Branch. 3. It appears that the complaints were filed by the complainant authority against the accused persons on the allegation that on the basis of assurances given by the State Bank of India that deposits in Term Deposits for one year would fetch interest @ 10.80% and on the assurance that there will be no penal charges for premature withdrawal money was deposited with them and when the complainant learnt that Canara Bank had offered an interest @ 10.90% on Term Deposits for a period of one year and above up to two years and there would be no penalty for premature withdrawal of deposits, the Authority took the decision that in the interest of the Authority the money be withdrawn from State Bank of India and in pursuance thereof a letter was written to the Bank to remit the amount with interest in complainant's current account with the Bank as per banking norms. However, the allegation of the complainant is that the Bank had committed criminal breach of trust as also fraud and cheating as it had deducted penalty for premature withdrawal and also penal charges for payment made. There was also allegation that the accused tried to blackmail the complainant by giving indirect threats in guarded language. Requests by the complainant to undo the penal deduction evinced no response. 4. Cr. Misc. No. 744 of 2008 relates to cognizance taken against the accused under Sections 409, 420, 384 and 166 I.P.C. in Complaint Case No. 1271 (M) of 2007 by order dated 30.4.2007 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Patna. 5. Cr. Misc. No. 1822 of 2008 relates to cognizance taken under Sections 409, 420, 425, 499, 166 and 120B I.P.C. in Complaint Case No. 1310(M) of 2007 on 3.5.2007 by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Patna. 6. Cr. Misc. 5. Cr. Misc. No. 1822 of 2008 relates to cognizance taken under Sections 409, 420, 425, 499, 166 and 120B I.P.C. in Complaint Case No. 1310(M) of 2007 on 3.5.2007 by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Patna. 6. Cr. Misc. No. 2397 of 2008 relates to cognizance taken under Sections 409, 420, 425 and 166 I.P.C. in Complaint Case No. 1270(M) of 2007 by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Patna on 30.4.2007. 7. Cr. Misc. No. 2398 of 2008 relates to cognizance taken under Sections 409, 420, 425, 499, 166 and 120B I.P.C. in Complaint Case No. 1309(M) of 2007 by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Patna by the order dated 3.5.2007. 8. The grievance is that cognizance in all these cases were taken on the very day of their filing without following the procedure laid down in Chapter XIV Cr.P.C., namely, an enquiry under Section 202 Cr.P.C. It was also submitted that the Bank had already informed the complainant that such huge amount could not be withdrawn, at such a short notice and they insisted that for premature withdrawal of such huge amounts, the approval of the competent authority was required and they also informed that the Authority would suffer substantial losses in case of premature withdrawal. The bank authority allegedly met the Chief Secretary and Finance Commissioner of the Govt. of Bihar, and both of them advised the Managing Director of the Authority not to take such steps and the Industrial Development Commissioner, Govt. of Bihar, asked the Bank not to break the deposit till he was specifically told to do so by him and that the issue would be discussed and decided at the proposed Board meeting of the Authority on 5th May, 2007. However, notwithstanding the said instructions, the Authority presented cheques through Canara Bank for the said amount to be withdrawn from its current accounts, which was returned with objection by the State Bank of India since the current account did not have the requisite amount. The further grievance of the petitioner is that notwithstanding the specific direction of the Industrial Development Commissioner not to withdraw the amount, the Authority proceeded to issue the cheques in favour of other Bank and although final decision was to be taken by the Board, the complainant proceeded to file the complaints without waiting for the decision of the Board. The further grievance of the petitioner is that notwithstanding the specific direction of the Industrial Development Commissioner not to withdraw the amount, the Authority proceeded to issue the cheques in favour of other Bank and although final decision was to be taken by the Board, the complainant proceeded to file the complaints without waiting for the decision of the Board. In this connection, it was submitted that the Board Authority had finally taken a decision on 11.5.2007 not to withdraw the term deposit before maturity from the State Bank of India. 9. The complainant has appeared and filed counter affidavits in which the submissions of the petitioner are sought to be countered, notwithstanding the decision taken by the Board of Authority. 10. The assurances of the Bank of not imposing penal charges for premature withdrawal as propounded by the complainant appears to be a verbal one and which is contrary to Banking rules and regulations, and as such assurances could not have been given by any banker. That apart from the story propounded by the complainant no offence whatsoever appears to have been committed by the accused persons. Even otherwise it appears that the complainant Authority has acted against the decision of the high Government officials and without waiting for the final decision of its Board has proceeded to file the complaints on their own and against the decision of the responsible officials of the Government itself. Such frivolous litigation at the behest of the Authority is wastage of public' money and court's time. 11. In the facts and circumstances of the case and with no offences having been made out against the accused persons, the impugned orders in all the four cases referred to above being abuse of the process of the court are quashed and all the four applications are allowed.