Uttam Kumar and Another vs The State of Bihar and Another

Abhijit Sinha, J.—The two petitioners herein who happen to be the Manager and Cashier of Punjab National Bank, Manjhwalia Branch have sought to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court u/s 482 Cr. P.C. for quashing of the order dated 13.9.2005 passed by Sri D.K. Mishra, Judicial Magistrate, Bettiah taking cognizance under Sections 420, 406 and 120B I.P.C, as also the entire criminal proceeding in complaint case No. 1121C of 2004 arising from the protest petition filed by the complainant in Manjhwalia P.S. Case No. 231 of 2003. One Ashok Kumar Upadhaya O.P. No. 2 herein submitted a written complaint bearing No. 2488C of 2003 before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, West Champaran at Bettiah, which was transmitted to the concerned police station u/s 156(3) Cr. P.C. and on the basis thereof Manjhwalia P.S. Case No. 231 of 2003 came to be registered. After due investigation the police submitted a final form reporting the case to be false whereafter the said complainant filed a protest petition which was numbered as complaint case No. 2212(C) of 2004 and after due inquiry u/s 202 Cr. P.C. the cognizance as aforesaid has been taken.

The prosecution case in brief is that the complainant is an account holder in Manjhwalia Branch of Punjab National Bank bearing Account No. 10263 and on 18.2.2003 he deposited a sum of Rs. 10,000/- in his said account but the same was not shown in the balance in the said account and without any information to him it was shown as deposited in Account No. 10273 on 14.2.2003 and the said amount was withdrawn. It is said that the complainant inquired in this regard on the basis of his pass-book and became aware of the said fact of transfer and withdrawal of money in collusion with account holder of Account No. 10273. The complainant is said to have requested the accused persons repeatedly to deposit the aforesaid sum in his account which was finally refused by them on 27.9.2003. According to the complainant the accused persons had grabbed the aforesaid amount belonging to the complainant in collusion with each other by taking benefit and advantage of their position.

It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioners that they are being sought to be prosecuted by O.P. No. 2 with ulterior motive and once the real facts are brought to the notice of this Court it would be apparent that the prosecution had been filed with false and connected allegations and with mala fide intentions to harass the petitioners herein. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners on 1.3.2002 Ali Imam, account holder of account number 10273, had deposited a sum of Rs. 10,000/- in his said account but as he had written his account number, in Hindi and due to some problem in the computer the said amount was wrongly shown as deposited in account No. 10263 on 1.3.2002 when, in fact, no such amount had been deposited in account No. 10263 by the complainant. It has further been submitted that later on when said Ali Imam came to withdraw money from his account the said mistake was detected and information was given to the complainant in this regard by the petitioners and after explaining the entries of his account No. 10263 as also the mistake committed and after obtaining his consent the amount of Rs. 10,000/- was over drafted in his account and transferred to account No. 10273 and a balance of Rs. 541 remained in the account of the complainant. The complainant deposited the said amount of Rs. 10,000/- on 18.2.2003 by taking loan from his "Anupam Account" of fixed deposit on interest @ 10.25% per annum. It was also pointed out that it would be evident from the statement of account of the complainant that he had done as many as 21 transactions in between 18.2.2003 and 30.9.2003 but he had not raised any grievance to any official of the bank about non-deposit of Rs. 10,000/- in his account on 18.2.2003.

On the aforesaid premise the learned counsel for the petitioners sought to submit that even from a plain reading of the contents of the protest petition as also the statement of the witnesses (Annexure 4 series) no case either under Sections 420, 406 and 120B I.P.C, can be said to have been made out in the absence of ingredients of the said offences and at best it was a matter of mistake in accounting which would fall within the ambit of civil wrong for which no criminal proceeding could be sustainable.

The learned counsel for the O.P. No. 2 sought to justify the impugned order of the learned Magistrate by stating that in the facts and circumstances of the case and the evidence available at the inquiry the learned Magistrate has been justified in taking cognizance as he did.

Admittedly, as would appear, on 1.3.2002 a sum of Rs. 10,000/- had been deposited by one Ali Imam, the account holder of account No. 10273, but by mistake of the computer the sum was credited in account No. 10263 although no such amount had been deposited by the account holder of account No. 10263 on that date and when the mistake was detected on information rendered by the said Ali Imam the account holder of Account No. 10273 corrective steps were taken. Apparently the complainant has sought to take ulterior advantage of the fact that erroneously an amount of Rs. 10,000/- belonging to account holder of account No. 10273 was credited to his account.

Be that as it may the entire circumstances of the case relate to a mechanical/computerized mistake relating to the maintenance of accounts and entries in the ledger of the account holders. On the obtaining allegations it is difficult to treat that the mistake, prima facie, amounted to an offence under Sections 420, 409 and 120B I.P.C, as to require the petitioners being hauled up in a criminal prosecution and continuation of such criminal prosecution, in this connection does not appear to be justified.

In the situation if the petitioners are made to face a criminal trial, that would, to my mind, amount to an abuse of the process of the Court. If the complainant-opposite party No. 2 still finds himself aggrieved and wronged and the actions of the petitioners herein it would only be proper to have the matter settled as a civil dispute in a civil proceeding on merits in accordance with law.

Due regard being had to the facts and circumstances of the case the impugned order dated 13.9.2005 passed by Sri D.K. Mishra, Judicial Magistrate, Bettiah in Case No. 1121(C) of 2004 cannot be sustained and is required to be quashed. Accordingly the application is allowed.