Hemant Kumar vs State Of Jharkhand And Others

Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J

07/20.1. Notices were issued upon opposite party no.2 and vide order dated 12.10.2023, considering that opposite party no.2 had not appeared and notice upon him was not effected, the petitioner was directed to take substituted notice by way of paper publication and pursuant to that, the petitioner has taken steps for substituted notice by way of paper publication and paper cutting of the notice has been brought on record by way of filing supplementary affidavit and in spite of that, nobody has appeared on behalf of opposite party no.2.

Accordingly, this matter is being heard in absence of opposite party no.2.

Heard Mr. Pratyush Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Sardhu Mahto, learned counsel for the State.

This petition has been filed for quashing of the entire criminal proceeding arising out of Complaint Case No.701 of 2002 including the order taking cognizance dated 15.12.2003, pending in the Court of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hazaribagh.

The complaint case was filed on 12.08.2002 by the complainant-opposite party no.2 against Hari Nandan Singh and Hemant Kumar, being the then Branch Manager, Canara Bank, Hazaribagh alleging therein that accused no.1, namely, Hari Nandan Singh approached the complainant for advance of Rs.70,000/- for his business of contractor, as the complainant and the said accused no.1 are in friendly relationship. Upon hard request of accused no.1, the complainant arranged the said sum from his friend circle. One of the complainant's friend, namely, Mukesh Gupta after assurance of the complainant that the amount will be returned in two to three months, gave Rs.63,000/- to the complainant on three installments of Rs.20,000/-, Rs.20,000/- and Rs.13,000/-. The accused no.1 gave assurance to the complainant that the amount will be returned after two months when he will receive the payment from the Department concerned. The accused no.1 issued a cheque of Rs.63,000/- in the name of the complainant being cheque no.0680591 dated 10.07.2002 of Canara Bank of his saving account no.17928. After that the complainant deposited the said cheque in the State Bank of India at Hazaribagh Branch in account no.01190014363. The accused no.2-petitioner returned back the said cheque to State Bank of India with an endorsement in column 6 of the report that there is overwriting in the date of cheque. After receiving the report, the complainant approached the Manager of the Canara Bank at Hazaribagh and enquired about the matter. The said accused no.2 being the Manager of the Canara Bank told the complainant that Hari Nandan Singh had sent a letter to the bank stating that he had issued a cheque bearing no.0680591 for Rs.63,000/- on 10.07.2001 and not 10.07.2002 and on that basis, the said cheque was returned unpaid to the SBI. It was further alleged that both the accused persons have allegedly connived with an intention to cheat the complainant and thus a forged letter has been sent by accused no.1 and allegedly a forged report has been sent by the accused no.2.

Mr. Pratyush Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the learned Court has been pleased to take cognizance under Sections 420/468/120B of the Indian Penal Code. He further submits that the petitioner was posted as Branch Manager of Canara Bank at Hazaribagh. He also submits that a cheque was issued by Hari Nandan Singh in the name of the complainant and the said cheque was not processed as there was overwriting on the date of the cheque. He submits that apart from that, there is no role of the petitioner, who happened to be the Branch Manager of the said Bank. By way of referring solemn affirmation, he submits that the amount was paid through the complainant to one Hari Nandan Singh and there is no allegation in the solemn affirmation, so far as this petitioner is concerned. On these grounds, he submits that the entire criminal proceeding may kindly be quashed.

Learned counsel for the State submits that looking into the complaint petition, the learned Court has been pleased to take cognizance.

Looking into the complaint petition, it transpires that the allegations were made in paragraph 7 that Hari Nandan Singh had issued a cheque of Rs.63,000/- in the name of the complainant and in paragraph 8 of the complaint petition, the allegations are made against the petitioner that he has made a comment on the back of the cheque that there is overwriting with regard to date of the cheque. Thus, it is crystal clear that the petitioner has acted as per the Bank's norms. There is no allegation in the solemn affirmation of giving any money to the petitioner, who happened to be the Branch Manager of Canara Bank at Hazaribagh. In view of these facts, it is crystal clear that no ingredient of Sections 420/468/120B of the Indian Penal Code is made out, so far as this petitioner is concerned.

A Reference may be made to the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Vineet Kumar v. State of Uttar Pradesh, reported in (2017) 13 SCC 369 as well as the judgment passed in the case of State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, reported in 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 and in view of the guideline nos. (1) and (7) of paragraph 102 of the judgment passed in the case of Bhajan Lal (supra), the case of the petitioner is fully covered.

In view of these facts, it appears that to allow to continue the proceeding, so far as the present petitioner is concerned, that will amount to abuse of process of law.

In views of the above facts, reasons and analysis, so far as the present petitioner is concerned, the entire criminal proceeding arising out of Complaint Case No.701 of 2002 including the order taking cognizance dated 15.12.2003, pending in the Court of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hazaribagh are quashed.

Accordingly, this petition is allowed and disposed of.

It is made clear that this Court has not interfered with the complaint case as well as order taking cognizance, so far as other accused is concerned and the learned Court will proceed in accordance with law.