Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 1575 (PAT)

Abdul Gaffar v. State of Bihar

2012-11-23

HEMANT KUMAR SRIVASTAVA

body2012
ORDER Heard the parties. 2. This petition u/S 482 of the Cr. P.C. has been filed for quashing the order dated 22-12-2010 passed by Sri A.K. Dixit, Judicial Magistrate-Ist Class, Siwan in Complaint Case No. 2184 (C) of 2010 by which and wherender, he, having found prima facie case under Sections-403, 420, 465, 120B of the Indian Penal Code, ordered to issue summons against the petitioner and other accused. 3. The brief fact, which lies to file this quashing petition is that opposite party No. 2 filed complaint case bearing Complaint Case No. 2184 (C) of 2010 against petitioner and three others alleging therein, inter alia, that he had purchased a vehicle on loan sanctioned by Bank of India and at the time of filing of the complaint petition, the petitioner was working as Branch Manager of Bank of India, at Siswan Chainpur branch, Siwan. He had paid Rs 70,000/- in cash to the proprietor of Mahendra Nath Agricultural Agency and got sanctioned loan from Bank of India for making rest payment of the aforesaid vehicle and the aforesaid loan was sanctioned on 29-05-2009 and the Mahendra Nath Agricultural Agency delivered the vehicle to him but later on, it was noticed that there was some major defect in the aforesaid vehicle and after that, he returned the aforesaid vehicle to concerned agency but the concerned agency did not make available new vehicle to him nor removed the defects in the vehicle which had been earlier delivered to the opposite party No. 2. He further alleged that the petitioner and co-accused, M.K. Srivastava being officials of the Bank of India, deducted installment of loan amount in collusion with the proprietors of aforesaid agencies. 4. Notice was issued to opposite party No. 2 who made his appearance through his counsel. 5. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that according to complaint case itself, the loan was sanctioned on 29-05-2009 whereas; the petitioner joined the above-said branch after sanction of the aforesaid loan and as a matter of fact, prior to joining at Chainpur branch, the petitioner was working in another branch and he was relieved from the aforesaid branch on 12-08-2009 and, therefore, the petitioner cannot be made responsible for any deduction from the saving account of the opposite party No. 2. It is also contended by him that moreover, opposite party No. 2 himself authorized the bank to deduct the monthly installments from his saving bank account which is evident from perusal of Annexure-5 of Cr. Misc. No. 21751 of 2011. It is further contended by him that one co-accused, namely, Manoj Kumar Srivastava @ Manoj Kumar Sinha, having similar allegation, filed quashing petition bearing Cr. Misc. No. 21751 of 2011 and another bench of this court quashed the impugned order in respect of the above-said accused, passing the order dated 12-07-2011. 6. On the otherhand, learned counsel appearing for opposite party No. 2 submitted that the order dated 12-07-2011 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 21751 of 2011 had been passed behind the back of the opposite party No. 2 and as a matter of fact, no notice was issued in the aforesaid Cr. Misc. No. Cr. Misc. No. 21751 of 2011. He further submitted that so far as Annexure-5 of Cr. Misc. No. 21751 of 2011 is concerned, the same is a manufactured document and some interpolation was made in the aforesaid document which is apparent even on perusal with naked eye. He further submitted that there is specific allegation against the petitioner that he conspired with the other accused and committed the alleged occurrence and, therefore, this petition should be dismissed on admission stage itself. 7. Having heard the rival contentions of both the parties, I have gone through the record. 8. Annexure-3 to this petition reveals that the petitioner was relieved from Parwaha branch on 12-08-2009 and according to complaint case itself, the loan was sanctioned on 29-05-2009. Therefore, it is clear that at the time of sanction of the above-said loan, the petitioner was not working in Siswan Chainpur Branch. Furthermore, co-accused, , Manoj Kumar Srivastava @ Manoj Kumar Sinha was also summoned by the court below passing the impugned order, which was challenged by the aforesaid co-accused before this court in Cr. Misc. No. 21751 of 2011 and another bench of this court, quashed the impugned order in respect of the above-said co-accused on the ground that at the time of sanction of the loan amount, the petitioner was not working in the aforesaid branch and furthermore, the opposite party No. 2 himself authorized the concerned bank to deduct the installments of loan amount from his saving bank account. Therefore, I find that the case of this petitioner is on similar footing to that of co-accused, Manoj Kumar Srivastava @ Manoj Kumar Sinha. 9. No doubt, learned counsel appearing for opposite party No. 2 has challenged the genuineness of Annexure-5 to the Cr. Misc. No. 21751 of 2011 on the ground that there was some interpolation in the aforesaid document but even if, the aforesaid document is discarded, then also, the petitioner cannot be fastened with any criminal offence as at the time of sanction of the loan amount as well as at the time of deduction of the loan amount, he was not working in the concerned bank. Therefore, I am of the opinion that prosecution of the petitioner in the present case is nothing but only an abuse of process of the court. 10. On the basis of aforesaid discussions, this quashing petition is allowed and, accordingly, the impugned order dated 22-12-2010 passed in Complaint Case No. 2184 (C) of 2010 is, hereby, quashed in respect of the petitioner only. 11. In the aforesaid manner, this petition stands disposed of on admission stage itself.