Pradeep Kori vs State Of Madhya Pradesh And another

The petitioner has filed this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure being aggrieved by the criminal proceedings initiated against him through Criminal Case No.3218/2008 under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 of IPC.

The facts given rise to this petition, in short, are that the petitioner, at the relevant point of time, was posted as Bank Manager in the State Bank of India, Betul. The allegation made against the petitioner was that in the year 1996, respondent No.2 entered into a contract along with his maternal uncle for opening a locker. He has been allotted locker No.63 and one key of that locker has been handed over to respondent No.2. In the year 1999 when respondent No.2 visited the bank and requested to open the locker, at that time, the petitioner was not Manager of that bank. The concerned Manager informed to the respondent No.2 that there is no locker in his name and locker No.63 is in the name of Shri Prem Shankar Malviya and Smt. Krishna Malviya who have been operating the locker as many as three occasions.

Respondent No.2, feeling aggrieved by the response of the then Bank Manager, filed a written complaint to the Superintendent of Police. During investigation, it was found that locker has not been opened in the name of respondent No.2 and there is no conspiracy. The Investigating Officer prepared a closure report of that investigation, that was to be filed before the Court, but, at the instructions of higher authorities of Police, in Crime No.450/2000 registered under Section 406, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B of IPC, SHO of Police Station Betul submitted a charge sheet against the petitioner which is registered as Criminal Case No.3218/2008.

Learned trial Court took cognizance in that case. The petitioner moved an application before the trial Court and respondent No.2 also moved an application along with affidavit in support of the petitioner, but the trial Court dismissed that application on the ground that it is not empowered to review its own order. Therefore, the petitioner preferred a revision before the Sessions Court and the revisional Court vide order dated 15/09/2014 has dismissed the revision.

Being aggrieved by that order, the petitioner has filed this petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. on the ground that there was a dispute between respondent No.2 and other persons pertaining to property.

Respondent No.2 alleges that document of Will was executed by his maternal uncle in his favour and filed a civil suit in the Civil Court, Betul, but, during pendency of the civil suit, both the parties entered into compromise. Respondent No.2 filed an application along with affidavit therein for seeking withdrawal of that civil suit. In light of that application, civil suit withdrew from the Court.

Locker was not in the name of respondent No.2. He is not authorized person to operate the locker. On account of property dispute between him and his family members, he filed this complaint alleging that there was a Will in the locker and the petitioner conspired with other opponents and opened the locker and missed the Will but respondent No.2 in the civil suit withdrew all the charges levelled against the petitioner while withdrawing the civil suit. The petitioner is not having any conspiracy with other persons and not having any criminal intention for doing any criminal act, therefore, prays for setting aside of the criminal proceeding initiated against him.

Heard learned counsel for both the parties and perused the case diary of Crime No.450/2000 registered against the petitioner along with other co-accused.

As per FIR, respondent No.2-Surendra Rai filed a written complaint alleging therein that in locker No.63 some important documents, ornaments including Will was kept there but other persons conspired with the petitioner and taking out all the documents including Will kept in Locker No.63. That complaint investigated by SDO (P) Shri Vijay Agrawal and filed a report. In that report he stated that all the accused persons along with the petitioner conspired to open locker No.63 and the articles kept in that locker were missing. The locker was in the name of Rama Shankar Malviya who was maternal uncle of respondent No.2. Respondent No.2 and his maternal uncle were jointly kept important documents in Locker No.63. A Will executed by Rama Shankar Malviya in favour of respondent No.2 kept in the locker was missing. On that report, FIR was lodged at Crime No.450/2000.

On perusal of the case diary and the evidence collected during investigation, it is gathered that respondent No.2, in his statement recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C., has categorically stated that the locker was opened in the name of his maternal uncle. After death of his maternal uncle, he inquired about the key of locker from his maternal aunt, she stated that the key has been given to his younger maternal uncle i.e. Prem Shankar Malviya. Thereafter he inquired that fact from Prem Shankar Malviya. There was a quarrel arose between Surendra Rai and Prem Shankar Malviya. When Surendra Rai went to bank, Bank Manager told that locker is not in his name and he is not authorised to open it. Being aggrieved by that incident, he lodged a complaint before the Superintendent of Police.

After perusal of the whole record, it is crystal clear that there is no nomination form executed by the previous owner of the locker. If there is no nomination, the Bank Manager and the Officers of the bank are duty bound to inquire into the matter who is successor of the owner and without there being made any enquiry, they allowed the brother of the deceased to open the locker instead of living wife of the deceased (previous owner of the locker). There is some criminal intention reflected from the evidence. The petitioner is posted in the bank as Manager. The petitioner was assigned the work for permitting the owner of the locker to open the locker, therefore, prima facie it seems to be involvement of the petitioner in the conspiracy. No doubt, later on, the matter was compromised by the complainant-Surendra Rai, but, this is not the material fact to stop the criminal proceeding. If there is cognizable offence found prima facie against any person or material sufficient to proceed against him for any criminal offence, the same cannot be quashed pre-maturely by invoking the powers envisaged under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.

Accordingly, this petition is devoid of any merit and the same is hereby dismissed.