Case Facts:
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.10015 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Miscellaneous No.10015 of 2010 ====================================================== Shreedhar Prasad Singh S/O Late Ranbir Prasad Singh R/O Moh.- Virkuwar Singh Colony, P.S.- Kotwali, Distt.- Munger .... .... Petitioner/s Versus 1. The State of Bihar 2. Ravindra Prasad Choudhary S/O Late Nunu Lal Choudhary R/O Vill.- Kasim Bazar, P.S.- Kasim Bazar, Distt.- Munger .... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance: For the petitioner : Mr. Santosh Kumar Singh, Advocate For opposite party 2 : Mr. Santosh Kumar Sinha 2, Advocate For the State : Mr Binod Kumar II, A.P.P. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT KUMAR SRIVASTAVA ORAL ORDER 9 26-11-2012 This petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 12.1.2010 passed by Sri Ankur Gupta, Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Munger in Complaint Case no. 425C/2006 by which and whereunder he, having found prima facie case under [STATUTE] , ordered to issue summons against the petitioner. The brief fact, which lies to file this quashing petition, is that opposite party no.2, namely, Ravindra Prasad Choudhary, filed the above stated Complaint Case no. 425C/2006 against the petitioner and two others alleging therein inter-alia that he was working in Jamalpur Railways Diesel factory and accused Siyaram Yadav was also working in the said factory and the petitioner developed intimacy with accused Siyaram Yadav. The aforesaid accused Siyaram Yadav advised him to take loan from Munger Jamui Central Co-operative Bank to meet his financial crisis and thereafter Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.10015 of 2010 2 he expressed his willingness to take loan from the above stated bank and accused Siyaram Yadav assured him to provide help to him in taking loan from the above stated bank. He further alleged in his complaint petition that on 10.3.2002 at about 5 p.m, the aforesaid accused Siyaram Yadav took his signatures on paper of loan as well as on plain papers and after one month, the aforesaid accused Siyaram Yadav told that he would to deposit document of land for getting the loan and then he disclosed that he had no land in his name. The aforesaid accused Siyaram Yadav assured him that he would arrange document of land and again took his signature on a printed form. Opposite party no.2 enquired from accused Siyaram Yadav several times about sanction of loan but accused Siyaram Yadav told him that as soon as his account would be transferred to the concerned bank, he would get loan amount from the concerned bank. He further alleged that on 29.3.2006 bank officials came at his house for realization of loan amount and then he gave an application to the Managing Director of the bank stating therein that he had not taken any loan. So, there was no question of repayment of loan amount. He further alleged that his advocate perused the file relating to the above stated loan and found one registered sale deed executed in his name and the aforesaid sale deed had been scribed by one Bharat Rajak and name of vendor had been shown as Bablu Rai whereas one Bipin Kumar Singh and Ranjit Paswan had made their signatures as guarantors on the loan papers but when he enquired from the aforesaid persons, they disclosed that they had not made any signature on the loan paper and accordingly, he came to know that aforesaid accused Siyaram Yadav Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.10015 of 2010 3 and Bablu Rai having entered into conspiracy with the petitioner got prepared forged documents and got sanctioned loan of Rs 2,60,000/- in the name of opposite party no.2. The aforesaid complaint was enquired under section 202 of the Cr.P.C and in course of enquiry, four witnesses were examined and having found prima facie case under the above stated sections, learned court below passed the impugned order dated 12.1.2010 against which this quashing petition has been filed. Notices were issued to opposite party no.2 who made his appearance through his counsel and filed counter affidavit denying the contents of the quashing petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that opposite party no.2 brought the above stated Complaint Case no. 425C/2006 maliciously with an intent to digest the loan amount which had been sanctioned in his name by Munger Jamui, Central Co- operative Bank. It is contended by him that, as a matter of fact, opposite party no.2 took the loan from the above stated bank and did not pay even a single instalment of the aforesaid loan and when bank officials tried to recover the aforesaid loan amount from the aforesaid opposite party no.2, he brought the above stated false case against the petitioner and others. It is pointed out by him that at the relevant time, the petitioner was working as Branch Manager, Munger Jamui, Central Co-operative Bank and no specific overt-act has been attributed against the petitioner and, therefore, prosecution of the petitioner in the present case is nothing but only an abuse of the process of the court. It is further contended by him that all the Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.10015 of 2010 4 documents relating to loan were signed by opposite party no.2 and not only this but also he withdrew the loan amount from the loan account by producing withdrawal slips and, therefore, it can not be said that he had not taken any loan from the concerned bank. It is further contended by him that in course of process of loan amount, the petitioner being Branch Manager had obtained no incumbrance certificate from the registry office and he bonafidely did his job and, therefore, it can not be said that he was in connivance with other accused in committing the alleged crime. Learned counsel for the petitioner drew my attention towards annexure 2 to the reply of the counter affidavit. Learned counsel for the petitioner

Applicable IPC Section: 406

Statute Text:
Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code. Criminal breach of trust. Whoever commits criminal breach of trust shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both.