Case Facts:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Miscellaneous No. 19050 of 2010 ================================================== Jatindra Nath Banerjee Son of late Mukul Banerjee, the Branch Manager United Bank of India, resident of Village- Kathal Bari P.S. L.M.Mishra University P.O. Lalbag, Distt- Darbhanga. .... .... Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Bihar 2. Manoj Kumar Son of Chandeshwar Prasad, resident of Village- Jhapaha, P.S. Ahiyapur, Distt- Muzaffarpur. .... .... Opposite Parties. ================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR ORAL ORDER 7. 20-09-2012 Heard Sri Shiva Shankar Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Harendra Prasad, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor as well as Sri Naresh Chandra Verma, learned counsel, who has appeared on behalf of complainant/opp. party no. 2. The sole petitioner, who was the Branch Manager in United Bank of India (hereinafter referred to as ‘Bank’), Sariyaganj, Muzaffarpur, has approached this Court, while invoking its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, with a prayer to quash an order dated 20-02-2010 passed by Sri Bipin Bihari Pandey, learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Muzaffarpur. By the said order, learned Additional Sessions Judge has Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.19050 of 2010 (7) dt.20-09-2012 2 / 11 2 rejected the Criminal Revision No. 35 of 2009, which was preferred by the petitioner against an order dated 18-12- 2008 passed by Sri R. K. Bharti, Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Muzaffarpur, in Complaint Case No. 1653 of 1996 (Tr. No. 1337 of 2010) whereby the learned Magistrate has rejected the prayer for discharge of the petitioner. Short fact of the case is that the opposite party no. 2 in the year 1996 filed a complaint petition, which was registered as Complaint Case No. 1653 of 1996, arraying four persons, including the petitioner, as accused on allegation of commission of offence under [STATUTE] . It was disclosed in the complaint petition that father of the complainant in the year 1982 had deposited Rs. 20,000/- under Fixed Deposit for a period of seven years. The Fixed Deposit Receipts (F.D.Rs.) were in the name of complainant, who was minor at the relevant time and father of the complainant stood guardian of the complainant. It has further been disclosed that immediately after depositing the said amount, accused no. 1 (Ramnath Prasad), who was a businessman, requested the Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.19050 of 2010 (7) dt.20-09-2012 3 / 11 3 father of the complainant to become guarantor for taking loan on his behalf. The accused no. 1 took Rs. 15,000/- as loan and father of the complainant had become guarantor of the said loan amount. It has been clarified in the complaint petition that while turning as a guarantor, the F.D.Rs. were produced by the father of the complainant in the Bank and it was kept in the Bank. It has further been disclosed that after the maturity of F.D.Rs., the father of the complainant approached the Bank for getting the amount of F.D.Rs. refunded, but the matter was deferred on one pretext or the other. Subsequently, it was noticed that the major portion of the amount of F.D.Rs. was adjusted against the loan amount of the accused no. 1 (Ramnath Prasad) and remaining amount of the F.D.Rs. i.e. Rs. 7,776/- was given to the loanee, Ramnath Prasad by pay order. However, subsequently, it was taken back by the Bank and handed over to the father of the complainant. It has been indicated in the complaint petition that said pay order was lost by the complainant. However, they repeatedly sent legal notices to the Bank for refunding the said amount and even in the year Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.19050 of 2010 (7) dt.20-09-2012 4 / 11 4 1996, while the petitioner was posted as Branch Manager, again notice was issued to the Bank, but the said amount was never refunded and as such, the complainant filed the present complaint petition. After order of cognizance and before framing of charges, only one witness i.e. father of the complainant (Chandeshwar Prasad) was examined as witness before charge. At the stage, under Section 245 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, learned counsel for the petitioner pointed out that there was no material for framing charge against the petitioner, however; the learned Magistrate, by the impugned order, rejected the prayer and directed for physical appearance of the petitioner for framing of the charge under Section 406 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which was assailed by the petitioner before the Revisional Court and Revisional Court too rejected the prayer of the petitioner and finally, the petitioner approached this Court by filing the present petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner, while assailing both the orders, submits that there were no Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.19050 of 2010 (7) dt.20-09-2012 5 / 11 5 materials on record suggesting even remotely involvement of the petitioner in the present case. It was submitted that F.D.Rs., which were taken in the year 1982, were for the period of seven years and those F.D.Rs. were produced by the father of the complainant before the Bank, while turning as guarantor to one of the accused in the present case. Since the loanee had not paid the loan amount, in the year 1989 the amount of F.D.Rs. was adjusted against loan amount and the remaining amount of Rs. 7,776/- was initially transmitted to the loanee itself. However, subsequently, it was taken back and it was again handed over to the father of the complainant. He submits that in the complaint petition, the complainant has admitted that the said pay order was lost and as such, it was never produced before the court below. He submits that even if it is assumed that any offence is made out, at the relevant time or at the time of offence, the petitioner was not at all in the picture. The petitioner joined the Bank as Branch Manager in the year 1996, whi

Applicable IPC Section: 420

Statute Text:
Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code. Cheating and there by dishonestly inducing delivery of property, or the making, alteration or destruction of a valuable security. Whoever cheats and thereby dishonestly induces the person deceived to deliver any property to any person, or to make, alter or destroy the whole or any part of a valuable security, or anything which is signed or sealed, and which is capable of being converted into a valuable security, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.