IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.23559 of 2007 ASHWANI KUMAR SIRMOUR , SON OF LATE SRI CHANDRABHAN SIRMOUR, PRESENTLY POSTED AS SR. MANAGER. SASARAM BRANCH, BANK OF INDIA, SASARAM, DISTRICT-ROHTAS…………………………………..PETITIONER. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR. 2. BECHAN CHOUDHARY, SON OF LATE RAM CHANDRA CHAUDHARY, RESIDENT OF-RAIPUR CHOR, P.S. SHIRSAGAR, DISTRICT-ROHTAS. ………………………OPPOSITE PARTIES. ----------- For the Petitioner : Mr. Bindhyakeshri Kumar, Senior Advocate and Mrs. Namrata Mishra, Advocate. For the State : Mr. Jharkhandi Upadhayay, A.P.P. For O.P. No.2 : None. --------------- 4. 16.10.2008. Complaint Case No.1177(C) of 2005 was filed in the court of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rohtas at Sasaram against the Manager of Bank of India, Sasaram Branch, for the alleged offence under Sections 342, 504 and 420 I.P.C. said to have taken place over a spread out period of six years in between 24.2.1999 to 3 P.M. of 17.9.2005. The complainant, one Bechan Choudhary, alleged that his brother, Awadh Bihari Choudhary, had taken loan from the Sasaram Branch of Bank of India to purchase a tractor bearing Registration No.BR-24A-3498 and while the tractor was returning from Chenari, it was seized by one Doma Choudhary of Village Banarsia within Sasaram P.S. who claimed that the said seizure was made on the basis of a request made by the Manager of the Bank. It has been alleged that the said Doma Choudhary has been using the tractor for his own commercial purposes and making profit out of the same and - 2 - information thereof by the complainant to the police evinced no interest or action by them. It is also alleged that the Manager told the complainant and his brothers that the payment of loan would be made by Doma Choudhary and on the basis thereof the loan that was being paid by the brother of the complainant in instalments was stopped. The complainant further alleged that all of a sudden on 17.9.2005 the Manager accompanied by police force came to his house and got arrested the complainant and his brother, Awadh Bihari Choudhary due to non payment of loan. It is also alleged that the Manager abused the complainant and Awadh Bihari and pushed him into a jeep even as the complainant pleaded that he was not the owner. It is stated that when the brother paid a sum of Rs.65000/- he was released from prison and after 22 days thereof the complainant was also released. Thereafter on the allegation that the Manager had damaged the self respect of the family of the complainant Complaint Case No.1177(C) of 2005 was filed by the complainant against the petitioner for the commission of the offence under Sections 342, 504, 434, 448 I.P.C. and following an inquiry under Section 202 Cr.P.C. cognizance was taken under Section 504 I.P.C. only. It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that he is innocent and Bank had granted a loan of Rs.1,28,000/- on 10.10.1996 to Awadh Bihari Choudhary, Bechan Choudhary, Doma Choudhary, Shambhu Choudhary, Rajesh/ Kumar Choudhary, Satya Narayan Choudhary and Smt. Muneshari Devi, wife of Doma Ram, for purchase of tractor, trolley and other agricultural implements on the - 3 - basis of their application filed by them on 13.9.1996. It is also said that the Bank made several requests to the borrowers to pay the instalments and clear their dues but the aforesaid borrowers failed and neglected to pay the dues of the Bank. It appears that the Bank in all advanced a sum of RS.7,03,000/- and the Bank was compelled to file Certificate Cases against all the borrowers for recovery of dues of a total sum of Rs.2,96,310/-. It has also been submitted that under Section 7 of the Public Debts Recovery Act, all borrowers are required to be served with notice but so far as the petitioner and his brother are concerned, but no notice was served on them and nevertheless the court issued D.Ws. against all the debtors including the petitioner and his brother. The learned counsel for the petitioner sought to submit that it would be very clear from perusal of orders dated 4.7.2003, 10.9.2005 and 17.9.2005 passed in the Certificate Case that the complainant had been taken in custody by the order of the Certificate Officer and the allegation of the petitioner being instrumental in sending the complainant to jail was not true. Eventually, on payment of the said dues and a compromise entered into between the parties the loan account was closed on 29.3.2006 and it was only thereafter that on 18.4.2006 the petitioner joined the said Sasaram Branch. On the said premise, it was submitted that the petitioner could not be faulted or be held liable for the action taken against the complainant prior to 18.4.2006 when the Certificate Case was filed and the petitioner was sent to jail. - 4 - Apparently, from a perusal of the complaint petition, it is obvious that the petitioner having joined the Sasaram Branch on 18.4.2006 was in no way liable for the allegations raised in the complaint petition even if they are accepted to be true. In the aforesaid circumstances, the prosecution of the petitioner would amount to an abuse of the process of the court. Having given my anxious thought to the facts and the circumstances of the case, the impugned order taking cognizance against the petitioner is hereby quashed and the application is allowed more so when the petitioner was in no way responsible for the allegations made in the complaint petition and since none of the ingredients of the offence under Section 504 I.P.C. has been made out against him. P.S. (Abhijit Sinha,J)