CRIMINAL MISCELLANIOUS No.12586 OF 2004 ******** In the matter of an application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. ********* HARI CHANDRA DAS @ HARISH CHANDRA DAS, S/o Shri Dwarika Das, Branch Mangager, Central Bank, Rustampur Branch, P.S. Raghopur, District-Vaishali. -----------(Petitioner) Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR. 2. Surendra Das, S/o Ghamandi Das, Resident of Village-Rushtampur, P.S.-Raghopur, Distt.- Vaishali. -------------(Opposite Parties) ******** P R E S E N T THE HON'BLE JUSTICE SMT. ANJANA PRAKASH ******** Anjana Prakash, J. The petitioner who was the Branch Manager, Central Bank, Rustampur Branch, P.S. Raghopur, District-Vaishali at the relevant time seeks quashing of the order dated 06.05.2002 passed in Raghopur P.S. Case No. 38 of 2002 by which the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hajipur, Vaishali has taken cognizance for offences under Sections 420 and 409 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. On 20.12.2005 an offer was made on behalf of the petitioner that he was ready to pay 2 a sum of Rs. 6,500/- without prejudice to his right to the Opposite Party No. 2 on which the Opposite Party No. 2 was noticed and thereafter he appeared and prayed for time to seek instruction in the matter as is apparent of the order dated 08.03.2006. On 27.03.2006 the Opposite Party No. 2 once again sought time. On 03.04.2006 finally the case was admitted for hearing with further proceedings having been stayed. Today neither of the parties appear before this Court. 3. The case of the complainant is that the informant had applied for a loan of Rs. 25,000/- for purchase of cattle from the Central Bank, Rustampur Branch, Vaishali where the petitioner was the Branch Manager. However, even though the loan was sanctioned the petitioner reportedly only paid a sum of Rs. 6,000/- to the Opposite Party No. 2 with a promise to pay the rest amount later on and took a receipt with his LTI for a sum of Rs. 25,000/- but did not in fact pay him the rest of the amount. After investigation charge-sheet was 3 submitted on 30.05.2003 and cognizance was taken on 20.06.2003. 4. It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner as per the petition filed before this Court that the Opposite Party No. 2 had been sanctioned a loan of Rs. 25,000/- under the SGSY Scheme and the first instalment for purchase of cattle was paid to him by way of Rs. 12,500/-. The next instalment was to be paid only after scrutiny of the utilization of the first instalment. The further document filed with this petition reveals that in fact there was no physical transfer of money from the petitioner to the Opposite Party No. 2 and in fact Rs. 12,500/- was credited in the account of the petitioner through bank transfer on 02.03.2002 and the informant on the basis of withdrawals slip had withdrawn a sum of Rs. 12,500/- from his Bank Account on 08.03.2002. By way of supplementary-affidavit some additional documents were brought on record by the petitioner which reveals that in fact the further inquiry was done into the matter and a number 4 of persons were questioned and thereafter the higher police officials concluded that in fact the petitioner had committed no wrong. 5. To my mind, since the entire allegations of the Opposite Party No. 2 is oral in nature it is difficult to conclude that any wrong was committed by the petitioner also since the documents reveal otherwise. 6. In view of such, this application is allowed and the entire proceeding including the order taking cognizance dated 06.05.2002 passed in Raghopur P.S. Case No. 38 of 2002 by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hajipur, Vaishali is hereby set aside. 7. Application stands allowed. Patna High Court, Patna. Dated the 14th July, 2010 NAFR/ Vikash/- ( Anjana Prakash, J.)