IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.42812 of 2007 MADAN PRASAD TIWARY @ MADAN TIWARY S/O Late Deo Narayan Tiwary, (Branch Manager Bhojpur Rohtas Gramin Bank), Durgadih, Bikramganj, Distt- Rohtas At present Branch Manager, Madhya Bihar Gramin Bank, Kurur Branch, P.S. Karakat, Distt- Rohtas. ---------------Petitioner Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR. 2. Deo Murat Singh S/O Late Ram Pravesh Singh, Resident of Village- Dharupur, P.S. Bikramganj, Dist.- Rohtas. -----------Opposite party ------------------- For the Petitioner:- Mr. Chitranjan Singh, Sr. Advocate. Mr. Sanjay Kumar Tiwary, Advocate. For the opposite party:- O. P. Upadhyay, Advocate. For the State:- Mr. Jharkhandi Upadhaya, A.P.P. -------------------------- 10. 10.03.2011 A complaint case was filed by Deo Murat Singh, of Bhojpur Rohtas Gramin Bank. The allegation in the complaint petition and the facts stated in the complaint petition are that opposite party no. 2 has taken a loan from the Bank. The opposite party had mortgaged the property of Khata No. 210, Plot Nos. 174/40 and 143/41 measuring 42 decimals and 6 decimals, respectively to the Bank. The said loan was taken in the year 1997, thereafter the opposite party defaulted for making payment of the loan amount and as a result of which the loan amount increased and had to pay to the Bank Rs. 3,71,710/-. The allegation is that the petitioner is not taking into account the money, which was deposited by the complainant against the loan 2 amount and has thus committed an offence under Sections 406 and 409 of the Indian penal Code. 2. It is also not in dispute that the property which was mortgaged by opposite party no. 2 was acquired by the State Government. The State Government paid the compensation amount of Rs. 4,09,599/- for the said land. The bank filed an application before the Land Acquisition Authority, that the money should be deposited in the Bank. Accordingly the compensation amount was deposited in the account of the complainant. A cheque has been issued by opposite party no. 2 (complainant) in favour of the Bank and the Bank on the basis of cheque issued, deducted the same amount from the account of opposite party no. 2. I, emphasis here that none of the facts stated aforesaid has been disputed by either party. The only issue raised on behalf of opposite party no. 2 is that the Bank Manager ought not to have deducted the said money without preparation of accounts. 3. During the pendency of this case this Court ordered the petitioner to meet the present Branch Manager, who was to consider the grievance of the petitioner and the opposite party no. 2 with respect to the settlement of the loan. A 3 supplementary affidavit has been filed today on behalf of the opposite party no. 2 in which it has been stated that opposite party no. 2 is claiming rebate of interest, on the basis of the fact that one Shrimati Parwati Kunwar was given rebate by the Bank. She had to pay a sum of Rs. 5, 65,538.75 paisa. The matter was settled between Smt Kunwar and the Bank by making payment of Rs. 4,00,000/- instead of Rs. 5 lacs which had become due to the bank. These facts only fortify this Court in view, that the opposite party no. 2 is asking the Bank to enter into a compromise, as it did with Smt Kunwar. However, the facts do not disclose as offence under Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code. The petitioner cannot be said to have misappropriated the money of opposite party no. 2 for his own use in violation of any legal rights that accrued to the Bank. 4. In the result, I quashed the order dated 7.7.2004 passed by Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Bikramganj, District- Rohtas in Complaint Case No. 88 of 2004 and the application is allowed. Anand Kr. ( Sheema Ali Khan, J.)