IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.52634 of 2007 VIJAY KUMAR SINGH, Son of Late Jagu Singh, Resident of Village-Gijwahi, Police Station, Sasaram, District-Rohtas. …….Petitioner. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR. 2. Madan Pathak, S/o not known, Branch Manager, Allahabad Bank, Sasaram. 3. Ramkesh Ram, Cashier, Son of not known. 4. Mahesh Kumar Malhotra, S/o not known cashier. 5. Anjani Kumar Sinha, S/o not known. 6. Satya Narayan Prasad, S/o not known, all staff of Allahabad Bank, Branch Sasaram, Rohtas. …….Opposite Parties. ----------- For the petitioner : Mr. Vikram Deo Singh, Adv. For the O.P. Nos. 2, 3, 5 & 6 : Anjani Kumar Sinha, Adv. ------------ 06. 09.04.2010 A supplementary-affidavit has been filed which is kept on record. The petitioner who is the complainant has sought quashing of the order dated 02.08.2006 passed in Complaint Case No. 1270 of 2002, Tr. No. 2309 of 2006 passed by Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Rohtas by which he has been pleased to dismiss the complaint and also seeks quashing of the order dated 27.07.2007 passed in Cr. Rev. No. 172 of 2006 by which the Sessions Judge, Rohtas at Sasaram has refused to further inquiry into the matter. The case of the complainant is that he had a - 2 - bank account in Allahabad Bank, Branch Sasaram had deposited altogether a sum of Rs. 1,99,100/- by three deposits between 3.06.2000 to 16.11.2000 but the same was not entered in the bank accounts by the bank officials. When he complained to the bank officials he was variously threatened by them for which he filed complaint case No. 186 of 2000 on 17.11.2000. Thereafter when he again went to the bank and enquired about the same on 18.11.2000 he was once again threatened by the bank officials. In the complaint itself, it has been mentioned that the complainant apprehended that his photograph would be photo copied and sent to other banks. In the meanwhile the earlier complaint of the complainant was dismissed in default on account of his non- appearance. The submission of the present petitioner is that from the facts of the case the ingredients of some offence mentioned therein are made out and therefore the Magistrate committed an error in dismissing the complaint. The Opposite Party No. 2 has appeared and also filed a counter-affidavit bringing on record the - 3 - fact that the petitioner was a joint account holder with one Sanjay Singh and Vijay Singh and both of them had been proceeded against by the bank for making fraudulent withdrawals on 19.11.2000 and therefore the present case is nothing but malicious prosecution instituted as a counter-blast to save himself from the stern action taken by the bank. The further submission of the Opposite Party is that the complainant has admitted about his apprehension about his photograph being pasted in the bank and the photo copied and be sent to other banks which had relevance to the action taken by the bank officials. On perusal of the complaint, I find that the present complaint is a second complaint for the same cause of action with a few additional facts having been added obviously with the intent to make out a fresh cause of action. The Opposite Party No. 2 points out that the first complaint was dismissed when the complainant had failed to appear for his solemn affirmation on medical grounds. When the same were produced before the Court, the Court refused to accept the same since they were not reliable and thus - 4 - dismissed the complaint. Moreover, on going through the complaint, I find that there is total absence of any specific overt act by any of the accused persons and the entire complaint is general and rambling in nature. There can not be any doubt that no person can be proceeded against any criminal trial on these sweeping statements. There could be instances where a vicarious liability would be enough to put persons on trial but the facts enumerated in the present complaint is not one such complaint and the minimum requirement here was that the overt act of each accused should have been mentioned. In the absence of the same, this Court is of the view that the orders passed by the Courts below need no interference. Further, the present complaint also appears to be a counter-blast to the action taken by the bank officials and it is nothing but a malicious prosecution to reek vengeance upon the bank officials. In the result, this application is dismissed. Vikash/- (Anjana Prakash, J.)