CRIMINAL MISCELLANIOUS NO. 35676 OF 2006 ********* (In the matter of an application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure ) ******* RAMJI MISHRA, SON OF LATE RAM NAGINA MISHA, BRANCH MANAGER, STATE BANK OF INDIA, AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT BRANCH, BENIPUR, POLICE STATION BAHERA, DISTRICT DARBHANGA, PRESENT POSTED AS P.V. MANAGER , S.B.I. MAIN BRANCH, DANAPUR, POLICE STATION DANAPUR, DISTRICT PATNA ………………………..……………….………….PETITIONER VERSUS 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. VINAY KUMAR THAKUR, SON OF SHRI RAMUDAR THAKUR, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE MAJHAURA, POLICE STATION BAHERA, DISTRICT DARBHANGA ………………………………… ……………………….……..OPPOSITE PARTIES ********** FOR THE PETITIONER :- MR. MANAN KUMAR MISHRA, SR. ADVOCATE MR. A. K. PANDEY, ADVOCATE SANJAY KUMAR PANDEY, ADVOCATE FOR O.P. NO. 2 :- NONE FOR THE STATE :- MR. RAJ BALLABH SINGH, A.P.P. ******* P R E S E N T HON’BLE JUSTICE SMT. SHEEMA ALI KHAN O R D E R Sheema Ali Khan, J. Heard Counsel for the petitioner and the A.P.P. appearing on behalf of the State. Nobody appears on behalf of the Opposite Party No. 2 to pursue this matter. 2. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 23.06.2006 passed in Complaint Case No. 82 of 2006 by which the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Benipur, Darbhanga has taken cognizance for the offences under Sections 120B, 469, 471, 500 and 505 of the Indian 2 Penal Code. 3. The allegations in the complaint petition are that the complainant who is also an Advocate filed a case alleging that the petitioner who is the Branch Manager of State Bank of India, Benipur Branch, Darbhanga did not produce the „No Dues Certificate‟ issued by the Bank before the Certificate Officer. 4. Counsel for the petitioner rightly submits that where a certificate case has been instituted and a „No Dues Certificate‟ has been issued by the Bank showing payment of the loan amount, it becomes the duty of the loanee to produce the „No Dues Certificate‟ before the Certificate Officer. It is not the duty of the Bank unless they are personally represented in the case to produce the „No Dues Certificate‟. It is alleged that the petitioner demand a sum of Rs. 10,000/- for producing the certificate. Unfortunately, the complainant was arrested in this case on 25.02.2006 and it is only after his arrest, he has filed this complaint case. 5. It may be noted that the „No Dues Certificate‟ was issued by the Bank in the year 2004 and the complainant had ample opportunity to produce the same before the Certificate Officer and get the certificate case dismissed. 6. Considering all the aforesaid facts, this Court 3 comes to the conclusion that no case is made out against the petitioner under Section 469/500 of the Indian Penal Code. 7. Section 469 of the Indian Penal Code envisages that there should be forgery in a document with the purpose of harming the reputation of any party. The facts of this case do not reveal that any forgery was committed by the petitioner. Similarly, Section 471 of the Indian Penal Code is also not made out in the facts stated aforesaid, which reads as “whoever fraudulently or dishonestly uses as genuine any document or electronic record which he knows or has reason to believe to be a forged document or electronic record, shall be punished in the same manner as if he had forged such document or electronic record”. 8. This Court can safely observe that since the „No Dues Certificate‟ was issued to the complainant in the year 2004 itself, there was no impediment for the complainant in producing the same before the Certificate Officer. If the certificate had been duly produced, there was no occasion for the Certificate Officer to issue a distress warrant in the name of the petitioner. As such, this Court comes to the conclusion that this case would not come within the purview of Section 500 of the Indian Penal Code. 4 8. Accordingly, I quash the order dated 23.06.2003 passed in C.R. No. 82 of 2006. 9. In the result, this application is allowed. ( Sheema Ali Khan, J. ) PATNA HIGH COURT DATED, THE 15th APRIL, 2011 N.A.F.R./ANAND