Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 231 (UTT)

VIBHOR CHANDRA v. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

2018-04-27

V.K.BIST

body2018
JUDGMENT Hon'ble V.K. Bist, J. This petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking the following reliefs: “i) Issue an order, direction or writ in the nature of certiorari calling for the records and quash the impugned First Information Report lodged against the petitioner on 17.4.2018 registered as FIR No.0057 of 2018, punishable under Section 409 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, P.S. Shyampur, District Haridwar (Annexure No.1 to the writ petition). ii) Issue an order, direction or writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent no.2 not to arrest the petitioner in pursuance to the impugned First Information Report lodged against the petitioner on 17.4.2018 registered as FIR No.0057 of 2018 punishable under Section 409 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, P.S. Shyampur, District Haridwar (Annexure No.1 to the writ petition)." 2. On 17.4.2018, the respondent no. 3 lodged an F.I.R. against the petitioner, alleging therein that the petitioner was posted in the bank as Customer Assistant from the year 2009 to 2018. It is alleged in the FIR that the petitioner wrongly withdrew the FDR deposit of the customers by forging the banking work and on making internal inspection; the forgery was found to be true. It is further alleged that on asking the petitioner for the same, he admitted that he misappropriated as a sum of Rs.48 lacs. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is only a Customer Assistant in the Bank, his work is only to assist the customers regarding their problems and he has no concern with the deposition or withdrawing the FDR amount. He submitted that the same has been checked and verified by higher officials, i.e. Head Clerk, Finance Manager, Assistant Branch Manager and Branch Manager. He also submitted that though the petitioner has been named in the FIR, but in fact the other persons were responsible for such irregularity. Other persons namely, Head Clerk, Finance Manager, Assistant Branch Manager and Branch Manager are responsible, but no FIR has been registered against them. It is also submitted that from the year 2009 to 2018, several audits as well as inspections were done by the Bank as well as higher authorities, but no irregularities were found and suddenly after the transfer of the petitioner, the FIR has been registered. 4. It is also submitted that from the year 2009 to 2018, several audits as well as inspections were done by the Bank as well as higher authorities, but no irregularities were found and suddenly after the transfer of the petitioner, the FIR has been registered. 4. Learned Government Advocate vehemently opposed the writ petition. He submitted that allegations made against the petitioner are serious in nature. Therefore, interim relief should not be granted to the petitioner and the writ petition filed by him deserves to be dismissed at the threshold. 5. I have considered the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the papers available on record. 3 6. The Hon'ble Apex Court, in the case of State of West Bengal. Vs. Swapna Kumar, 1982 (1) SCC 561 , has held that if an offence is disclosed, Court will not normally interfere with the investigation into the case, and will permit investigation into the offence alleged to be completed. If the FIR, prima facie, discloses the commission of an offence, the Court does not normally stop the investigation, for, to do so would be to trench upon the lawful power of the police to investigate into cognizable offences. 7. From perusal of FIR, I find that contents of F.I.R. disclose offence and it is for the Investigating Officer to investigate the case and, thereafter, either to file charge sheet or final report in the matter. It is not a fit case, where the High Court should interfere in this criminal writ petition moved under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Consequently, the writ petition is dismissed. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner then submitted that in case offence is made out against the petitioner, in that event, the petitioner will surrenders before the Court concerned and will move the bail application and the Court concerned may be directed to decide their bail application same day. Considering the submission of learned counsel for the petitioners, it is directed that in case petitioner surrenders and moves bail application, the same shall be decided by the Court concerned expeditiously, in accordance with law, preferably on the same day.