IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.29239 of 2007 1. ALOK KUMAR, SON OF SRI S.N. SINHA, BRANCH MANAGER, I.C.I.C.I. BANK, EXTENTION BRANCH, FRAZER ROAD, PATNA. 2. ASHWANI KUMAR, SON OF SRI DEOKINANDAN PRASAD SINGH, OPERATIONAL MANAGER, I.C.I.C.I. BANK, MAIN BRANCH, EXHIBITION ROAD, PATNA, AT PRESENT POSTED AS BRANCH MANAGER, I.C.I.C.I. BANK LIMITED, JAMSHEDPUR, JHARKHAND. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- PETITIONERS Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR. 2. SHIDDHARTH KUMAR GUPTA @ SIDDHARTH, SON OF GIRENDRA PRASAD GUPTA @ GRIND GUPTA, RESIDENT OF CHAK MUSSALAHPUR, PS KADAMKUAN, DISTRICT PATNA. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- OPPOSITE PARTIES ******** For the petitioners :- Mr. Vidya Sagar, Advocate Mr. Kumar Omkarnath, Advocate Mr. Samir Kumar Ranjan, Advocate For the State :- Mr. B.P. Singh, A.P.P. 12 6.1.2011 Petitioners have been made accused in a complaint case for offences allegedly committed under Sections 420, 379 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code. They have challenged the order dated 9.1.2007, passed in Complaint Case No. 638(c) of 2006, by the Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Patna taking cognizance of the offences and summoning the petitioners to face the trial. Petitioners are Bank Managers of I.C.I.C.I. Bank, Frazer Road and Main Branch, Exhibition Road, Patna respectively. The allegation in the complaint petition is that the complainant gave a loan to one Pramod Kumar (accused no. 3). One of the 2 cheques issued by the complainant could not be encashed and as the petitioner no. 1 had made endorsement that there is insufficient money in the bank account. Pramod Kumar filed a complainant petition which is contained in Annexure-5 under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act. The reference of the said complaint case is at paragraph 6 of the complaint petition. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that these two petitioners are bank employees and have no interest in the transactions between the complainant and the accused no. 3 in this case. The petitioners were merely doing their duty. It has been said that petitioner no. 1 has perhaps deposed in the case instituted by Pramod Kumar and because of this reason, the allegations have been levelled that the petitioners were in connivance with the accused no. 3 and have made a wrong endorsement on the cheque. This Court on perusal of the entire complaint petition finds that as far as these two petitioners are concerned, there is no allegation against them which would come within the 3 purview of Sections 420, 379 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code. If the Courts were to allow the bank employees reporting regarding the status of the bank accounts to be made accused in cases under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act or those cases which have connected with regular duties of bank employees, the bank employees would be put to harassment and it would be a misuse of the process of law to allow such persons to be roped in criminal cases arising out of such disputes. I, therefore, find that there are no substantive allegations against the petitioners and as such the order taking cognizance dated 9.1.2007 in Complaint Case No. 638(C) of 2006, pending before the Court of the Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Patna is quashed as far as it concerns the petitioners. This application is accordingly allowed. Sanjay ( Sheema Ali Khan, J.)