Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 571 (GAU)

Sudip Dhar v. State of Assam

2019-05-09

RUMI KUMARI PHUKAN

body2019
JUDGMENT : 1. Heard Mr. A.M. Barbhuiya, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. B.J. Dutta, learned Addl. PP, Assam. 2. By this application u/s 482 of CrPC, petitioner has sought for quashing of the FIR pertaining to Silchar PS Case No. 2745/2015 u/s 420 of IPC, lodged by respondent No. 2. 3. Necessary facts which reveals from the documents annexed with the petition is that the respondent No. 2, The United bank of India, Cachar, Silchar lodged an FIR against the present petitioner to the fact that Bank has received several claims relating to ATM Cards of their bank as well as other banks which were received through Dispute Management System Portial of National Payments Corporation of India which routes all the Inter Bank Transactions and that, claims related to alleged false transaction and the bank authority generally take the decision to accept or reject such claims based on the particulars contained in the electronic Journel (EJ) of the ATM with particular reference to the Response Code and the excess cash amount in the ATM. However, in the month of June, 2015, the bank received 4 more claims amounting to Rs. 44,00,000/- where the Electronic Journel contained a similar type of error and the CCTV footage were not also available and out of those 4 items, 2 claims were for Rs. 12,000/- relates to their bank and the account holder is the accused petitioner Sudip Dhar. It was disclosed in the FIR that a total 50 claims amounting to Rs. 4,32,000/- were received from the accused petitioner, 12 claims for Rs. 1,20,000/- from Mr Ranajay Dhar and 2 claims of Rs. 20,000/- were from Lila Dhar. Thus, it was found that the majority of claims have made by the accused petitioner Sudip Dhar and other claims were made by the persons with the same title which raised certain apprehension regarding the falsity of the claims. It is stated that one person have same money, transaction from ATM at the same time is unusual happenings. In the circumstances it was apprehended that the matter of extorting, vaxitious claims has been designed in the name of ATM card and the authenticity of such matter is required to be gone through. It is stated that one person have same money, transaction from ATM at the same time is unusual happenings. In the circumstances it was apprehended that the matter of extorting, vaxitious claims has been designed in the name of ATM card and the authenticity of such matter is required to be gone through. It was found that the accused petitioner is the habit of restoring to such numbers of ATM Cards withdrawal transaction taking advantage of some lacuna in the ATM functioning like erroneous printing of transaction status in Electronic Journal and non availability of CCTV Footage etc. 4. On the basis of said FIR, investigation was started and some relating officials were also examined. During the course of investigation and the accused petitioner was arrested. Certain ATM cards were also seized from the present accused petitioner but it reveals that detailed enquiry of the said is still pending. 5. Now, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the FIR itself failed to disclose any prima facie offence u/s 420 of IPC against the petitioner to initiate the criminal proceeding. It is submitted that having so many ATM on the part of the customer cannot be an offence and again raising claims against defaulted transaction also cannot be suspected. Furthermore, it has also been submitted that on the apprehension FIR has been filed without there being any such prima facie allegation to constitute the offence, hence same is bad in law and liable to be quashed and set aside. 6. I have heard the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner, who has put forward his argument on the basis of ground assigned in the petition. Also heard learned Addl. PP Mr. BJ Dutta who has contended that raising such repeated claims on the basis of various ATM Card by same person is a doubtful matter and such a matter should be enquired to unearth the entire gamut that has been complained by the informant in the FIR. 7. On perusal of the case diary, it reveals that IO has examined some bank officials and is in the process of examining other relating officials as well as documents and is of opinion that the accused petitioner is the master mind of ATM fraud cases and he withdrew money by ATM by electronic fault by taking advantage of mechanical/computer defect. On perusal of the case diary, it reveals that IO has examined some bank officials and is in the process of examining other relating officials as well as documents and is of opinion that the accused petitioner is the master mind of ATM fraud cases and he withdrew money by ATM by electronic fault by taking advantage of mechanical/computer defect. It was also found that the ATM transaction has taken place at the ATM of United Bank of India, where CCTV footage not working and other defect. The accuseds hidden idea that the monitor of computer system of Meherpur Branch only showing that the transaction failed though money was disbursed from the ATM. Taking advantage of the same, the accused lodged the complaint and thus with drew money which amounts to Rs. 5, 72,000/-. Further, accused has ATM cards of many Banks, at the same time which is also unusual. Thus, it was finding of the investigating officer that the accused person has committed mischief by such false claim though he received money through ATM withdrawal. After going through the case diary and the entire matters on record, it reveals that although the FIR was filed on some apprehension but finding in the investigation otherwise, suggests some complicity of the present petitioner and in that case we cannot deny that there is a scope for further investigation the entire matter to unearth the whole aspect by examining all the relating documents and witnesses. 7. The provision of Section 482 of CrPC can be invoked in rarest of rare cases to prevent abuse of process or miscarriage of justice but the same cannot be invoked in a routine manner. Due investigation is warranted in the present background of the case and this Court is of opinion that it is not a fit case to invoke the aforesaid provision. Accordingly while dismissing the present petition the stay order, stands vacated and IO is directed to proceed with the investigation without further delay and to complete the same as early as possible. Return the case diary.