Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 2623 (ALL)

Kumud Dhall v. State of U. P.

2019-11-22

RAM KRISHNA GAUTAM

body2019
JUDGMENT : 1. This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed with a prayer for quashing the order dated 04.09.2019, passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ghaziabad including entire proceeding of Complaint Case No. 32560 of 2018, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B I.P.C. Police Station Indrapuram, District Ghaziabad. 2. Learned counsel for applicant argued that applicant was Branch Manager in Punjab and Sind Bank, Branch Kaushambi, District Ghaziabad. An amount was transferred from account of Rohit Sharma, Rahul Sharma and Smt. Urmila in account of Kamleshwaranand, being maintained in above Bank. Subsequently, a request from those persons, through whom this amount was transacted, was received that it was an erroneous transfer and that amount be returned back. This Branch Manager complied above request and returned above amount, for which there was no guilty mind. Subsequently, this came into her notice that there had been some criminal litigation regarding alleged fraud committed by Rohit Sharma, Rahul Sharma and Smt. Urmila with Kamleshwaranand. The amount was further remitted to this branch of Punjab and Sind Bank, of which applicant is Manager. Still that amount is lying in a freezed account and there is no malice nor any mens rea on the part of Branch Manager in a transaction in between Kamleshwaranand, Rohit Sharma, Rahul Sharma and Smt. Urmila, but vide impugned summoning order, this applicant too has been summoned for offences punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B I.P.C., which is apparently erroneous and misuse of process of Court. Hence, this application with above prayer. 3. Learned counsel for complainant Kamleshwaranand argued that account of Kamleshwaranand was with above branch of Bank concerned, in which applicant was Branch Manager. Kamleshwaranand entered into agreement to sell of his own flat and in lieu of consideration that money was transacted in account of Kamleshwaranand through RTGS and once it was there the same may not be returned back to those accused persons against whom summoning is there, but it was conspiracy of Branch Manager, who returned above money and it was against the guidelines of Reserve Bank of India enumerated in Paras 3, 4 and 5 of Central Government Act Section 23 in the Payment of Settlement System Act, 2007 wherein Reserve Bank of India has given direction. Hence, trial court has rightly passed impugned summoning order and this application is to be rejected. 4. Hence, trial court has rightly passed impugned summoning order and this application is to be rejected. 4. Learned A.G.A. also vehemently opposed the aforesaid prayer. 5. From the perusal of material placed on record, it is apparent that complaint was filed by Kamleshwaranand against Rohit Sharma, Rahul Sharma, Smt. Urmila Sharma, Smt. Kumud Dhall (present applicant) and two others at Police Station Indrapuram, District Ghaziabad. The contention was that complainant being a senior citizen of 66 years was owner of flat No.III-A/50, First Floor, Rachna Vaishali, Ghaziabad and he entered in an agreement to sell with Smt. Urmila for Rs.50,00,000/-, out of which on 28.03.2018 Rs.5,00,000/-, on 09.04.2018 Rs.2,00,000/-, on 25.06.2018 Rs.10,00,000/-and on 26.06.2018 Rs.23,65,000/-, in all Rs.33,65,000/-were paid. Rest Rs.9,35,000/-were said to be paid subsequently before getting sale deed executed, but the amount which was transacted on 25.06.2018 and 26.06.2018 was got returned back by way of an application with incorrect fact by those accused persons and this came into notice of complainant through SMS. Thereafter, complainant enquired into the matter and took above steps. Meaning thereby, regarding applicant accusation is that she being Branch Manager of Punjab and Sind Bank, Branch Kaushambi returned back money to those accused persons in view of their request for getting same returned back and this has been said to be under conspiracy. Hence, complaint itself is for offence of conspiracy for commission of fraud by returning money transacted on 25.06.2018 and 26.06.2018 in account of accused persons by above Branch Manager. Nothing more than that is there in complaint regarding this conspiracy. Applicant herself has admitted that she had returned above money in compliance of request made by concerned Bank, from which that amount were transacted, and after knowledge of alleged fraud, the same money was got returned back and is kept under freezed account. Hence, apparently, there is no conspiracy or malice on the part of accused applicant except her routine performance of duty. The summoning of accused applicant for above offences is apparently without any evidence on record. Hence, it is misuse of process of law. 6. Accordingly, this application is allowed. Hence, apparently, there is no conspiracy or malice on the part of accused applicant except her routine performance of duty. The summoning of accused applicant for above offences is apparently without any evidence on record. Hence, it is misuse of process of law. 6. Accordingly, this application is allowed. The impugned summoning order dated 04.09.2019, passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ghaziabad including entire proceeding of Complaint Case No. 32560 of 2018, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B I.P.C. Police Station Indrapuram, District Ghaziabad is hereby quashed, but it will not effect the summoning regarding other accused persons.