Mira Kumari vs Central Bank of India and Others

D.N. Patel, J.—The present writ petition has been preferred mainly for the reasons that the petitioner was never issued any cheque book, but, from her bank account a sum of Rs. 1,34,000/- has been taken away by somebody else and the respondent-Bank is in connivance with such type of withdrawal of money and therefore, the respondent-Bank must return Rs. 1,34,000/-, which has been withdrawn from the bank account of the petitioner bearing Savings Bank Account No. 53718 with the respondent-bank.

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that as stated in paragraph No. 8 of the writ petition, no cheque book was issued to the petitioner and, therefore, no question whatsoever arises of withdrawal of any amount through cheque. The respondent-Bank has not appreciated the fact that if any amount is to be withdrawn through cheque, cheque book must have been issued to the petitioner and, therefore, the amount of Rs. 1,34,000/-, which has been withdrawn through different cheques, should be returned to the petitioner with interest.

Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the present petitioner was issued a cheque book having cheque Nos. 360051 to 360060 and out of these ten cheques, several cheques were used by the petitioner and under her signature, several amounts have been withdrawn from her Savings Account Unnecessarily, the petitioner is insisting that no cheque book was ever issued to her and without her signature, the money was withdrawn. In fact, the respondent-Bank has filed a First Information Report and similarly, the petitioner had also filed a complaint case, in which handwriting expert''s opinion was also taken with regard to the signature upon the cheque and it was found out that all the signatures belong to, the petitioner. Thus, all the cheques, which were utilized out of the aforesaid cheque book, were signed by the petitioner and the amounts were withdrawn by her and, therefore, a summary report was filed by the police upon completion of investigation u/s 169 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and upon this summary report, filed by the police, opportunity of hearing was given to the complainant i.e. the petitioner. Never any objection was filed by the petitioner about the correctness of investigation at the hands of the police. This, both the criminal matters were brought to an end, upon the report filed by the police.

It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the respondents that thereafter, the petitioner has moved the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum on the very same allegations and for the very same amount. However, no relief was granted by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum and again the petitioner moved the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Ranchi, where also no relief was granted to the petitioner and thereafter, for the very same relief the present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the respondents that a cheque book, containing ten cheques, was issued to the petitioner and the petitioner has utilized several cheques and has withdrawn the amount and, therefore, no question whatsoever of retaining the aforesaid amount arises and, thus, the present writ petition may be dismissed with cost.

Having heard learned counsel for both the parties and considering the facts and circumstances of the case, it appears:

(a) The petitioner was issued a cheque book bearing cheque Nos. 360051 to 360060 and therefore, the allegation, levelled in paragraph No. 8 of the writ petition, are absolutely false. Out of the aforesaid ten cheques, few cheques were signed by the petitioner, as detailed herein below:

Sl. No.

Date

Cheque No.

Amount

1.

14.02.2000

360051

Rs. 9,000/-

2.

16.02.2000

360052

Rs. 20,000/-

3.

18.02.2000

360056

Rs. 25,000/-

4.

19.02.2000

360055

Rs. 20.000/-

5.

22.02.2000

360057

Rs. 30,000/-

6.

24.02.2000

360058

Rs. 30,000/-

(b) The aforesaid all the cheques were signed by the petitioner, but, the petitioner is denying the feet, by saying that no cheque book was issued to the petitioner and, therefore, no question of signing them by the petitioner whatsoever arises.

This contention of the petitioner is absolutely false and frivolous and, therefore, is not accepted by this Court, because previously First Information Report was filed by the Bank and similarly criminal complaint was also filed by the petitioner and ultimately, after investigation, the police filed summary report u/s 169 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, after obtaining handwriting expert''s opinion, in which also it is stated that all the cheques were signed by the petitioner and in the complaint case, opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioner to lodge objections, but, no objection was filed by the petitioner before the Court, where the complaint was filed by the petitioner and, thus, both the criminal cases were brought to an end, since the cheques were signed by the petitioner.

(c) Thereafter, the petitioner had moved before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum on the very same allegations and for the very same amount of Rs. 1,34,000/-. No relief was granted by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum. Thereafter, the petitioner approached the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission. There also no relief was granted to the petitioner. These orders, have been accepted by the petitioner and has never challenged them before any Court/forum.

(d) The cheque book was issued to the petitioner and few of the cheques were signed by the petitioner and the amount was withdrawn and, therefore, this amount was rightly debited by the respondent-Bank.

In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, there is no substance in this writ petition and hence the same is hereby dismissed with a cost of Rs. 2,000/-, to be deposited by the petitioner with the respondent-Bank, failing which the Bank shall recover the amount of cost, in accordance with law. Petition dismissed.