Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 705 (JHR)

Allahabad Bank v. State of Jharkhand

2024-08-01

ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY

body2024
By the Court : 1. Heard the parties. 2. Since all the three criminal miscellaneous petitions have been filed with the selfsame prayer to quash the entire criminal proceeding arising out of Complaint Case No. 1770 of 2017 by which the complaint was referred to police for registration of F.I.R. and to quash the Hazaribagh Sadar P.S. Case No.873 of 2017 corresponding to G.R. Case No. 3622 of 2017, registered for the offences punishable under Section 420, 463, 467, 465, 468, 477, 500 & 504 of the Indian Penal Code, hence all these three criminal miscellaneous petitions are disposed of by this common judgment. 3. The allegations against the petitioners is that Allahabad Bank, Main Branch, Hazaribagh was inducted as a tenant by the father of the informant on month to month rental basis since May, 2001 at the rate of Rs.5 per square feet for the first floor and at the rate of Rs.10 per square feet for the other floor. On May, 2008 before expiry of the lease deed, the mother of the complainant requested to determine the monthly rent but with malafide intention, the accused persons did not consider the lawful request of the mother of the complainant. The mother of the complainant approached the Sub-Divisional Magistrate-cum-House Rent Controller, Hazaribagh who has enhanced the monthly rent to Rs.25,050/- per month vide Case No. 11 of 2009 but after hatching a conspiracy, the accused persons of the case did not comply the order of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate and instead they filed an appeal before the Deputy Commissioner, Hazaribagh being Appeal No. 1 of 2011 and the same was dismissed by the Deputy Commissioner, Hazaribagh. The accused persons of the case did not comply the order of the Deputy Commissioner, Hazaribagh to create Hungama in collusion with the local police. The petitioners are forcibly occupying the rental premises. 4. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that at present there is no post of Chief Managing Director in the Allahabad bank though the Chief Managing Director has been arrayed as an accused. After the year, 2015, the post of Chief Managing Director has been split up in Managing Director and Chief Executive Officer. Similarly, there is no post in the name of Deputy Zonal Manager. After the year, 2015, the post of Chief Managing Director has been split up in Managing Director and Chief Executive Officer. Similarly, there is no post in the name of Deputy Zonal Manager. It is next submitted that otherwise also, a post cannot be made an accused person and only a person can be made an accused. It is then submitted that therefore Cr.M.P. No. 3328 of 2017 has been filed by the Allahabad Bank even though the Allahabad Bank, itself has not been arrayed as an accused. It is then submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that even though the entire allegations made in the First Information Report are considered to be true, still none of the offence for which the case has been registered is made out against any of the petitioners of the three criminal miscellaneous petitions. It is next submitted that the petitioner of Cr.M.P. No. 3377 of 2017 namely Rajiv Sinha was the Manager, Property, posted with the Zonal Office of Allahabad Bank, Ranchi and there is no allegation of his being involved in any of the allegations made in the complaint personally. The petitioner of Cr.M.P. No. 3379 of 2017 namely Suman Kumar was the Branch Head-cum-Chief Manager of Hazaribagh Branch of Allahabad Bank and in his personal capacity, there is no allegation of him also of doing any illegal act, deed or thing. 5. It is next submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner relying upon the Order of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Neetu Singh & Others Vs. State of U.P., reported in 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 281, where the accused persons of that case were prosecuted for committing the offences of cheating for their failure to pay rent, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India observed that failure to pay rent may have several consequences but it is not a penal offence under the Indian Penal Code as the mandatory legal requirement of offence of cheating under Section 415 and that of misappropriation under Section 403 of the Indian Penal Code are missing and quashed the First Information Report. Hence, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the prayer as prayed for by the petitioners in the three criminal miscellaneous petitions be allowed. 6. The learned Addl. Hence, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the prayer as prayed for by the petitioners in the three criminal miscellaneous petitions be allowed. 6. The learned Addl. P.P. opposes the prayer for quashing the entire criminal proceeding arising out of Complaint Case No. 1770 of 2017 by which the complaint was referred to police for registration of F.I.R. and for quashing the Hazaribagh Sadar P.S. Case No.873 of 2017 corresponding to G.R. Case No. 3622 of 2017, registered for the offences punishable under Section 420/463/ 467/465/468/477/500/504 of the Indian Penal Code. 7. Having heard the rival submissions made at the Bar and after carefully going through the materials available in the record, it is pertinent to mention here that so far as the offence punishable under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code is concerned, it is a settled principle of law, as has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Uma Shankar Gopalika vs. State of Bihar & Anr. reported in (2005) 10 SCC 336 , paragraph no. 6 of which reads as under :- 6. Xxxx xxxx xxxx It is well settled that every breach of contract would not give rise to an offence of cheating and only in those cases breach of contract would amount to cheating where there was any deception played at the very inception. If the intention to cheat has developed later on, the same cannot amount to cheating. In the present case it has nowhere been stated that at the very inception there was any intention on behalf of the accused persons to cheat which is a condition precedent for an offence under Section 420 IPC.” (Emphasis supplied) That every breach of contract would not give rise to an offence of cheating and only in those cases breach of contract would amount to cheating; where there was any deception played at the very inception. If the intention to cheat has developed later on, the same will not amount to cheating. 8. Now coming to the facts of the case, it is admitted case of the complainant-informant that the petitioners of the criminal miscellaneous petitions were occupying the premises as tenant for considerable period of time, since the time of his father and obviously they have been paying the rent. Subsequently, there was a dispute between the parties regarding enhancement of rent. Now coming to the facts of the case, it is admitted case of the complainant-informant that the petitioners of the criminal miscellaneous petitions were occupying the premises as tenant for considerable period of time, since the time of his father and obviously they have been paying the rent. Subsequently, there was a dispute between the parties regarding enhancement of rent. So under such circumstances, it cannot be said that the petitioners have committed the offence of cheating punishable under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code. 9. Under such circumstances, this Court has no hesitation in holding that even if the entire allegations made against the petitioners are considered to be true still the offence punishable under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code is not made out. 10. So far as the offence punishable under Section 463 of the Indian Penal Code is concerned, it is not a penal offence, it only defines forgery. 11. So far as the offences punishable under Section 465/467/ 468/477 of the Indian Penal Code are concerned, the essential ingredient for the same is commission of forgery. There is no allegation against any of the persons of the case including the petitioners of these three criminal miscellaneous petitions having committed any forgery. Under, such circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that even though the allegations made against the petitioners are considered to be true, still the offences punishable under Section 465/467/468/477 of the Indian Penal Code are not made out. 12. So far as the offence punishable under Section 500 of the Indian Penal Code is concerned, the same relates to punishment for defamation but there is no allegation against the petitioners or any of the accused persons of the case of having defamed the complainant-informant or anyone else. Under such circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that even if the entire allegations made against the petitioners are considered to be true, still the offence punishable under Section 500 of the Indian Penal Code is not made out. 13. Under such circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that even if the entire allegations made against the petitioners are considered to be true, still the offence punishable under Section 500 of the Indian Penal Code is not made out. 13. So far as the offence punishable under Section 504 of the Indian Penal Code is concerned, it is a settled principle of law that in order to constitute the offence punishable under Section 504 of the Indian Penal Code, mere allegation that the accused persons abused the complainant does not satisfy the ingredients of constituting the offence punishable under Section 504 of the Indian Penal Code as has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Vikram Johar vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. reported in (2019) 14 SCC 207 , paragraph nos. 24 of which reads as under :- “24. Now, we revert back to the allegations in the complaint against the appellant. The allegation is that the appellant with two or three other unknown persons, one of whom was holding a revolver, came to the complainant's house and abused him in filthy language and attempted to assault him and when some neighbours arrived there the appellant and the other persons accompanying him fled the spot. The above allegation taking on its face value does not satisfy the ingredients of Sections 504 and 506 as has been enumerated by this Court in the above two judgments. The intentional insult must be of such a degree that should provoke a person to break the public peace or to commit any other offence. The mere allegation that the appellant came and abused the complainant does not satisfy the ingredients as laid down in para 13 of the judgment of this Court in Fiona Shrikhande [Fiona Shrikhande v. State of Maharashtra, (2013) 14 SCC 44 : (2014) 1 SCC (Cri) 715]. 14. The mere allegation that the appellant came and abused the complainant does not satisfy the ingredients as laid down in para 13 of the judgment of this Court in Fiona Shrikhande [Fiona Shrikhande v. State of Maharashtra, (2013) 14 SCC 44 : (2014) 1 SCC (Cri) 715]. 14. Under such circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that the allegation of any intentional insult and thereby giving provocation to the complainant-informant or anyone else intending or knowing it to be likely that such provocation will cause him to break the public peace or to commit any other offence, even if the allegations made in the F.I.R. are considered to be true in their entirety, still the offence punishable under Section 504 of the Indian Penal Code is not made out. 15. Under such circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that as none of the offences for which the F.I.R. has been registered are made out against the petitioners, hence the continuation of the criminal proceeding would amount to abuse of process of law. Therefore, it is a fit case where the entire criminal proceeding arising out of Complaint Case No. 1770 of 2017 by which the complaint was referred to police for registration of F.I.R. and the Hazaribagh Sadar P.S. Case No.873 of 2017 corresponding to G.R. Case No. 3622 of 2017, registered for the offences punishable under Section 420, 463, 467, 465, 468, 477, 500 & 504 of the Indian Penal Code be quashed and set aside. 16. Accordingly, the entire criminal proceeding arising out of Complaint Case No. 1770 of 2017 by which the complaint was referred to police for registration of F.I.R. and the Hazaribagh Sadar P.S. Case No.873 of 2017 corresponding to G.R. Case No. 3622 of 2017, registered for the offences punishable under Section under Section 420, 463, 467, 465, 468, 477, 500 & 504 of the Indian Penal Code is quashed and set aside. 17. In this result, this criminal miscellaneous petition is allowed.