Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 28 (ALL)

RAMENDRA PAL SINGH v. STATE O

2008-01-04

AMAR SARAN

body2008
AMAR SARAN, J. Heard learned Counsel for the applicant and learned Additional Government Advocate. 2. This application has been filed for quashing the charge-sheet No. 313 of 2006 dated 28. 12. 2006 in case crime No. 36 of 2004, under sections 420/467/468/471 IPC, police station Bannadevi, district Aligarh, pending in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Aligarh. 3. The allegations in the FIR were that one Rajesh Kishore opened an account bearing No. 3825 on 9. 10. 2003 in Kshetriya Sri Gandhi Ashram extension counter of the Central Bank of India. The said Rajesh Kishore was introduced by another account holder Jeet Pal Singh. The signature of the introducer was verified by the applicant, who was in-charge of the extension branch and who completed the formalities for opening the account. Rajesh Kishore is said to have deposited three cheques of Rs. 1,60,000/-, 3,10,000/- and 3,20,000/- drawn on HDFC Bank Panchkula, Haryana for collection at the branch. The said cheques were forwarded by the Air State Courier to the Panchkula Bank of the Central Bank of India by means of FSCM. After the completion of the formalities of FSCM the said amount was deposited in the newly opened account of the account holder, who withdrew the entire amounts on different dates. On 29. 1. 2004 when a letter was sent by the Aligarh branch of the Central Bank of India to its branch at Panchkula for realization of the amount of the FSCM, then he received information by telephone on 3. 2. 2004 that the so-called FSCM, which was sent by the extension counter of the branch has not reached Panchkula nor have they realized any amount of the same. The information was then communicated by telephone to the regional office of the branch in Agra. After that, an enquiry was conducted by the Assistant Regional Manager and the Branch Manager (the informant) and they learnt that in a fraudulent manner in pursuance of a conspiracy by the Air State Courier, the said amount had been embezzled. 4. It was further mentioned in the FIR that the introducer Jeet Pal Singh had given a letter to the branch that he had not introduced any Rajesh Kishore nor did he know him, hence it was prayed that an FIR be registered against Rajesh Kishore and the owner of Air State Courier for the said fraud. 5. 4. It was further mentioned in the FIR that the introducer Jeet Pal Singh had given a letter to the branch that he had not introduced any Rajesh Kishore nor did he know him, hence it was prayed that an FIR be registered against Rajesh Kishore and the owner of Air State Courier for the said fraud. 5. Subsequently, it appears that on completion of investigation the charge-sheet has only been submitted against the applicant on 28. 12. 2006, who was not named in the FIR and no charge-sheet has been submitted against Rajesh Kishore, the alleged account holder, Jeet Pal Singh, the introducer, nor the Air State Courier. 6. In the first place, it was argued by the learned Counsel for the applicant that as the applicant was not named in the FIR, he could not be assigned any complicity in the offence. 7. I am not in agreement with this contention. The role assigned to the applicant, who was in-charge of the extension counter of the branch was of verifying the signature of introducer Jeet Pal Singh, who in turn is said to have introduced the account holder Rajesh Kishore, and of having completed all the formalities for opening the account of Raj Kishore from which account the amount was embezzled. Jeet Pal Singh had submitted a letter as far back as on 4. 2. 2004 prior to lodging of the FIR that he did not know Rajesh Kishore and had not introduced him. 8. There also does not appear to be any evidence to the effect that the admitted signature of the introducer Jeet Pal Singh in his account was the same as the signature of the introducer on the account opening form. If the statement of Jeet Pal Singh was correct that he had not introduced Rajesh Kishore and if his admitted signature did not tally with the signature on the account opening form, and also as the applicant had departed from the settled bank practice of sending a thanks letter to Jeet Pal Singh the introducer, then the obvious inference would be that it was the applicant who had played a fraud in verifying that the introducer was Jeet Pal Singh. Furthermore the subsequent enquiry had also led to the conclusion that the said Raj Kishore did not even reside at the place mentioned in the account opening form, and in a collusive manner the letter of thanks sent by speed post was received back from the wrong address with the endorsement that Raj Kishore had received it. Since this Raj Kishore was not identified, the obvious inference that could be drawn from the circumstances was that the principal fraud had been committed by the applicant who had the most active role in opening the account. 9. However these are all questions, which will need to be examined by the Trial Court during trial and cannot be prejudged by this Court in this application under section 482 Cr. P. C. 10. Furthermore, I find that the FSCM contained three cheques, which has supposedly been sent by the extension counter had never reached Panchkula branch as was reported by telephone by the Haryana branch on 3. 2. 2004 to the main branch at Banna Devi. This suggests that obviously the FSCM which was said to have been falsely shown to have been received back from the Panchkula branch earlier, on the basis of which the cheque amounts were entered in the new account of Raj Kishore and were subsequently withdrawn could not have taken place without the involvement of the applicant who was the acting in-charge of the extension branch of the bank. However, as mentioned earlier, the details about whether the offence had been committed and whether the applicant was involved in the same can only be decided at the trial. 11. It was next argued by the learned Counsel for the applicant that as a matter of fact the applicant has been falsely implicated by the Regional Manager as he was an important union leader of the Bank Workers Organization and that in one matter he had raised a plea that the affidavit of Regional Manager Shri G. K. Mehrotra was a forged and manipulated document as the affidavit had been notified on 19. 9. 2006 at Kanpur whereas as per report annexed with the affidavit submitted by the authorised representative on 23. 11. 2006 Shri Mehrotra was shown to have been at Agra on 19. 9. 2006 and some notices had been issued by the Presiding Officer on 13. 11. 9. 2006 at Kanpur whereas as per report annexed with the affidavit submitted by the authorised representative on 23. 11. 2006 Shri Mehrotra was shown to have been at Agra on 19. 9. 2006 and some notices had been issued by the Presiding Officer on 13. 11. 2006 to the Regional Manager, his advocate and the notary in this regard and that it was only as a counter blast to this application the Regional Manager had prevailed on the Investigating Officer to submit the charge-sheet against the applicant on 28. 12. 2006. 12. There is no substance in the further contention of the learned Counsel for the applicant that Jeet Pal was prevailed upon by the Regional Manager to give this letter due to his hostility with the applicant, but significantly there is no such assertion in the application. Also the alleged letter by Jeet Pal Singh dated 4. 2. 2004, which is Annexure 4 could not be a back dated document as argued by the Regional Manager as the said letter is mentioned in the FIR itself, which was lodged on 6. 2. 2004. 13. The delay in submission of charge-sheet only took place because the applicant had earlier succeeded in getting his arrest stayed in the writ petition. 14. The further submission of the learned Counsel for the applicant that in another case, which has been annexed as Annexure 7, only some increments were denied to the person who had negligently signed FSCM without tallying the signatures of the concerned officials of the branch. It may be noted that such a clerk had a minor role in the incident and he may have been a victim of a fraud, hence the applicant could not be assigned the limited penalty as was awarded to the clerk Surendra Kumar as the applicant was the in-charge of the extension branch and could in all likelihood have been actively involved in the fraud, as is suggested by the circumstances alluded to above, whether the other accused were involved or not. 15. The facts that the charge-sheet had only been submitted against the applicant and not against Rajesh Kishore or Jeet Pal Singh or Air State Courier, also only goes to strengthen the likelihood of the applicant being the master mind behind this crime, instead of exonerating him from the offence. 15. The facts that the charge-sheet had only been submitted against the applicant and not against Rajesh Kishore or Jeet Pal Singh or Air State Courier, also only goes to strengthen the likelihood of the applicant being the master mind behind this crime, instead of exonerating him from the offence. Also during the course of the trial if evidence is available against any other accused there is no impediment to summoning them in exercise of powers under section 313 Cr. P. C. 16. Learned Counsel also tried to get the case postponed as no counter affidavit has been filed. As the case was listed for final hearing today and I was not satisfied on the material on record that any ground for quashing of the charge-sheet against the applicant was made out, I find no ground to postpone the hearing of the case simply because counter affidavit had not been filed in pursuance of an earlier interim order of this Court dated 25. 10. 2007, which had stayed the proceedings in this case. 17. In this view of the matter, I find no force in this application, it is accordingly rejected. 18. It is clarified that the observations hereinabove have only been made in answer to the detailed arguments advanced by the learned Counsel for the applicant, and the Trial Court shall decide the trial as per his own judicial discretion uninfluenced by the above observations. 19. The stay order dated 25. 10. 2007 is vacated. 20. As the matter seems to have been unduly delayed, the FIR being almost 4 years old, the Trial Court is now directed to proceed with the trial expeditiously and if possible to conclude the same within six months. Office is directed to communicate this order to the Court below within two weeks. Application Rejected. .