State Bank of Patiala vs Ashwani Kumar

Sabina, J.—Petitioner has filed this petition u/s 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for quashing of the complaint bearing No. 546/06 dated 9.10.2006 (Annexure P10) filed under Sections 379, 380, 451, 452, 406, 409, 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (''IPC for short) and summoning order dated 10.10.2008 (Annexure P13) and all the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that no specific allegation had been made against the petitioner in the FIR. Hence, the petitioner-Bank was not liable to be prosecuted.

None has appeared on behalf of the respondent.

In State of Haryana and others Vs. Ch. Bhajan Lal and others, , the Apex Court has held as under:-

The following categories of cases can be stated by way of illustration wherein the extraordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent powers u/s 482, Cr.P.C. Can be exercised by the High Court either to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently channelised and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised:-

(1) Where the allegations made in the first information report or the complainant, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused.

(2) Where the allegations in the first information report and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers u/s 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code.

(3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do no disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused.

(4) Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a Police Officer without an order of Magistrate as contemplated u/s 155(2) of the Code.

(5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused.

(6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of aggrieved party.

(7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceedings is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge.

We also give a note of caution to the effect that the power of quashing a criminal proceeding should be exercised very sparingly and with circumspection and that too in the rarest of rare cases; that the court will not be justified in embarking upon an enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the FIR or the complaint and that the extraordinary or inherent powers do not confer an arbitrary jurisdiction on the court to act according to its whim or caprice.

Complaint (Annexure P10) reads as under:-

That the complainant is one of the partner in M/s. Vardhman Rice and Oil Mills, village Sanwla District Kurukshetra. The said firm had obtained pledge Limit and Term Loan from State Bank of India, Kurukshetra Branch in the year 1999. The complainant firm suffered huge losses due to fall in the prices of the rice and paddy and due to said loss, firm could not make regular transactions in the said account. On 1.8.2002, the accused persons exercising the powers under loan agreement have taken 4119 Quintals rice superfine and broken rice, 27 quintals rice basmati and 10000 empty bag/bardana in their custody by sealing the godowns of the complainant from all sides and put their keys on the said godowns. The list of Inventory of the stock prepared by accused persons in the presence of the complainant and one witness Taja Ram on 1.8.2002 is attached herewith. The accused persons have also employed their Watchman for safe custody of the godown.

That in the year 2003, the accused persons have entered into a criminal conspiracy to cause wrongful loss to the complainant and his other partners. In pursuance of said criminal conspiracy, all the accused namely J.K. Rawal, P.K. Saini, Vibhash Girdhar and J.S. Nayar along with their associates in the crime, have entered into the godown of the complainant and have stolen around 9800 empty bags and 2971 quintals rice belonging to the complainant firm which was pledged with accused no. 5.

That Branch Manager of State Bank of Patiala, Thanesar, had informed to SHO of Police Station Sadar, Thanesar, vide letter dated 26.5.2003 that there are only 2410 bags of rice in the sealed godown of the complainant. However, when authorized officer i.e. Chief Manager Advances, State Bank of Patiala, Regional Office-II, Panchkula, had issued a public notice for sale of the assets of the complainant firm, it was disclosed that there are 2420 bags of rice of 50 Kgs. each and only 200 empty bags are there out of 1000 empty bags and 4176 quintals rice, which was taken in possession by the accused persons from the complainant on 1.8.2002.

That accused persons were trustee of the stocks of the complainant firm which was taken by them in their custody on 1.8.2002, but the accused persons have committed theft of rice and empty bags/Bardana by entering into a sealed godown and misappropriated 2971 quintals of rice and 9800 empty bags/Bardana. All the accused have shared the said stock among themselves. Since accused no. 1 to 4 were responsible persons of accused no. 5 Bank at the time of commission of the said offence, as such, all the accused have committed offences punishable under sections 379, 380, 451, 452, 406, 409, 120-B of Indian Penal Code. 5. That the complainant had made a written complaint to the Superintendent of police, Kurukshetra, on 27.6.2003 through registered post, with a request to register a case against the accused persons, but till today, the police did not take any action against the accused persons and rather it came to the knowledge of the complainant recently that they did not register any case against the accused persons. Hence, this complaint.

That the above said offences have been committed by the accused within the territorial jurisdiction of Police Station, Sadar Thanesar, hence, this Hon''ble Court has got the jurisdiction to entertain the present suit.

It is, therefore, prayed that the accused persons may kindly be summoned and be punished according to law. It is further prayed that a reasonable compensation as provided u/s 357 Cr.P.C. may kindly be awarded to the complainant on account of loss suffered by the complainant due to crime committed by accused persons, in the interest of justice.

Thus, a perusal of the complaint reveals that the case of the complainant is that accused PK. Saini, J.K. Rawal, Vibhash Girdhar and J.S. Nayyar in connivance with each other had stolen 9800 empty bags and 2971 quintals rice belonging to the complainant which were pledged with the petitioner. Hence, the petitioner-Bank could not be proceeded criminally on the allegation that the theft had been committed by the Bank officials. For any criminal act committed by the Bank officials in their personal capacity, the Bank cannot be held criminally liable. Accordingly, this petition is allowed. Summoning order dated 10.10.2008 (Annexure P13) qua petitioner is quashed. Consequently, Complaint bearing No. 546/06 dated 9.10.2006 (Annexure P10) filed under Sections 379, 380, 451, 452, 406, 409, 120B IPC qua the petitioner is deemed to have dismissed.