THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION No. 7430 of 2009 Date: 25th March, 2011 Between: Dr. Hanumanthu Venkatesham Dhora … Petitioner A n d The State of AP., rep. by its Public Prosecutor and another … Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION No. 7430 of 2009 ORDER: The petitioner/A2 is accused of offences punishable under Sections 406 and 420 I.P.C in C.C.No.29 of 2009 on the file of Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Siddipet, Medak District, along with another. The petitioner is working as Superintendent in Area Hospital, Siddipet. The 2nd respondent/de facto complainant is working as Medico-Legal Advisor at Siddipet. A Joint Account was opened in Andhra Bank, Siddipet in the names of the petitioner and the 2nd respondent relating to funds of Red Cross Society. It is alleged that A1 who is Manager of the Bank, in collusion with A2, allowed A2 to withdraw total sum of Rs.1,00,000/- from the said Joint Account by presenting six cheques signed by A2 alone contrary to the Bank rules to the effect that the cheques have to be drawn by both the Joint Account holders. The lower Court referred the private complaint to the police for investigation under Section 163 Cr.P.C. The police after investigation filed final report concluding that the case is liable to be referred under the caption of mistake of facts. It was stated by the investigating officer in the final report that as the 2nd respondent was not cooperating with the petitioner for drawing amounts from the Joint Account for the purpose of repairs to Blood Bank room, Red Cross Society of doctors working in the Area Hospital in their meeting held on 03-12-2007 passed a resolution that as the complainant was not cooperating for the work, A2 alone shall get the work done. It is further stated in the final report that Work Satisfaction Certificate was also issued by the Secretary of Red Cross Society for the work done by A2. 2. After notice of the final report to the 2nd respondent, the 2nd respondent filed protest petition on which enquiry was held and the lower Court passed docket order dated 22-06-2009 taking the case on file for the offences punishable under Sections 406 and 420 I.P.C. against A1 and A2. When there is Joint Account of petitioner and the 2nd respondent in a Bank, in law both are co-owners of the property in that Account. There is no entrustment of property or funds by the 2nd respondent to the petitioner. In the case of joint owners or Joint Account holders or partners, the question of invoking Section 406 I.P.C can never arise at all. In any event, the amounts in the bank account are not personal funds of the 2nd respondent and the petitioner. They are Red Cross Society funds. It is not the complaint of the Red Cross Society that there was any misappropriation or cheating committed by A2 in relation to the funds in the bank account. On the other hand, the Red Cross Society passed a resolution in the meeting entrusting the work of repairing Blood Bank room to A2 alone as the complainant was not cooperating with A2 for the said work. The Red Cross Society further gave Work Satisfaction Certificate in respect of the said work completed by A2. 3. The petitioner’s counsel placed reliance on HARMANPREET SINGH AHLUWALIA & ORS. V. STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS[1] of the Supreme Court and contended that in the absence of an element of wrongful intention or deception from the inception of the transaction, the question of cheating under Section 420 I.P.C. and breach of trust under Section 406 I.P.C. will not arise. I agree with the said contention of the petitioner’s counsel. It is evident that the 2nd respondent intended to take advantage of technical violation stated to have been committed by A1, by ignoring resolution of the Red Cross Society which is the owner of the funds in the Joint Account. This Court is of the opinion that prosecution of the petitioner/A2 is nothing short of abuse of process of law. 4. In the result, the Criminal Petition is allowed quashing proceedings in C.C.No.29 of 2009 on the file of Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Siddipet, Medak District, insofar as the petitioner/A2 is concerned. _____________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU, J Date: 25th March, 2011 KSM [1] 2009 Criminal Law Journal 3462