IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.18301 of 1998 LAXMI NARAIN PODDAR, SON OF LATE RAM NARAIN PODDAR, MANAGING DIRECTOR, M/S A.T.O.(I) LTD.60/C, COLOOTOLA STREET- CALCUTTA-700073--- PETITIONER Versus 1. STATE OF BIHAR 2. STATE BANK OF INDIA, INDUSTRIAL FINANCE BRANCH, PATNA THROUGH SHRI KAMLESHWAR SINGH SON OF LATE LEUTINENT COLONEL R.B.SINGH, DEPUTY MANAGER (CREDIT) INDUSTRIAL FINANCE BRANCH, STATE BANK OF INDIA, RED CROSS BUILDING,4TH FLOOR,POLICE STATION- GANDHI MAIDAN,TOWN & DISTT. PATNA.. OPP.PARTIES. ---------- FOR THE PETITIONER ;- MR. VINDHYAKESHRI KUMAR, SENIOR ADVOCATE MR. SHAILENDRA KR. ADVOCATE. FOR OPPOSITE PARTYNO.2 :- MR. S.D.SANJAY, ADVOCATE FOR THE STATE :- MR. LALA KAILASH BIHARI, SENIOR ADVOCATE. ------------- 7 26-3-2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the complainant, State Bank of India and learned counsel for the State. Petitioner is Managing Director of a Transport Company at Calcutta. He has prayed for quashing the entire prosecution as well as the order dated 3-2-1998 whereby the learned Judicial Magistrate, Patna has issued process against the petitioner in Complaint Case No. 563 ( C ) of 1997 in respect of offences under sections 2 403,406,407,409,420,468,471/120(B) of the Indian Penal Code. A very simple and straight forward submission has been advanced on behalf of the petitioner that the complaint petition filed through the officials of the State Bank of India may disclose offence against accused nos.1,2 and 3 and some other persons but no offence is made out against the petitioner. According to petitioner the statement of the complainant on solemn affirmation as well as statements of witnesses produced by the complainant do not disclose materials against the petitioner and therefore the petitioner’s name should be separated from the list of accused persons and process should not be issued against him. Learned counsel for the complainant, on the other hand, submitted that on the basis of forged, fabricated and false consignment note the Bank was put to loss in a transaction involving Rs.3,0000000/- 3 (rupees three crores) and at this stage it will not be proper to hold that evidence and the circumstances in support of the allegations of conspiracy are not sufficient to issue summons against the persons who were controlling the Transport Company in question which had indulged in false consignment notes which led to cheating of the Bank. At the present stage of the criminal proceeding, this Court is reluctant to go into the detail of facts and give its own finding which may prejudice one or the other party at subsequent stage of the case. It is not a case where no offence is made out on the basis of allegations and materials available on record. In that view of the matter cognizance order also cannot be faulted. The main issue arising on the basis of submission raised by learned counsel for the petitioner is that there is lack or insufficiency of material against the petitioner for proceeding against him in this case. In view of such stand of the 4 petitioner noticed above, it is deemed proper not to interfere in the matter at this stage but liberty is granted to the petitioner that if so advised he may pray for his discharge him from the criminal proceeding. If such a prayer is made before the trial court, the same shall be considered on its own merit without being prejudiced by any observation made in this order. The quashing application is disposed of. The order staying further proceeding will stand vacated. The court below shall proceed with the matter expeditiously in accordance with law. Naresh ( Shiva Kirti Singh, J.)