IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. WJC NO.414 OF 2010 SHEO NANDAN SINGH, SON OF SHRI BANARSI SINGH, RESIDENT OF MOHALLA BABU TOLA, AMARPUR ROAD, POLICE STATION BANKA, DISTRICT BANKA ………………………………………………………..PETITIONERS VERSUS 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE ZONAL MANAGER, STATE BANK OF INDIA, PATNA 3. THE REGIONAL MANAGER, STATE BANK OF INDIA, BHAGALPUR 4. CHANDRA SHEKHAR PRASAD SINGH, THE THEN BRANCH MANAGER, STATE BANK OF INDIA, AGRICULTURE DEVELOPMENT BRANCH, BANKA, POLICE STATION AND DISTRICT BANKA 5. NEERAJ THAKUR, BRANCH MANAGER, STATE BANK OF INDIA, AGRICULTURE DEVELOPMENT BRANCH, BANKA, POLICE STATION AND DISTRICT BANKA 6. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, BANKA 7. THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, BANKA 8. THE INVESTIGATING OFFICER, BANKA POLICE STATION, BANKA 9. MD. ATIOUR RAHMAN, PROPRIETOR OF M/S A-ONE MOTORS, TATARPUR ROAD, POLICE STATION TATARPUR, DISTRICT BHAGALPUR ……………………………………………………………………OPPOSITE PARTIES ********** FOR THE PETITIOENR :- MR. PANKAJ KUMAR SINHA, ADVOCATE MR. RAJIV KUMAR SINGH, ADVOCATE FOR THE S T A T E :- MR. MANOJ KUMAR, AC TO GA VI FOR RESP. 3 TO 5 :- MR. SOURENDRA PANDEY, ADVOCATE ************** 9 07 /09/2011 Heard Counsel for the petitioner, Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent nos. 3, 4 and 5 and the A.P.P. appearing on behalf of the State. This application has been filed for quashing of the entire First Information Report of Banka Police Station Case No. 535 of 2009 instituted under Sections 406 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code on 24.12.2009. A complaint was filed which was sent to the police for institution of the First Information Report. The prosecution case is that the petitioner applied for a 2 car loan from the State Bank of India, Agriculture Development Branch, Banka (hereinafter referred to as “the Bank”). The petitioner paid the margin money and thereafter a draft was issued by the Bank in favour of M/s A-one Motors. Apparently, the car was not delivered to the petitioner. When the Bank came to learn that the car was not delivered to the petitioner, it sent a notice to the A-one Motors directing them to either to deliver the car to the petitioner or return the draft amount to the Bank. In reply to the said notice, it is specifically stated by A-one Motors that the petitioner did not want to purchase the car and that since there was no covering letter, a cheque of Rs. 4,80,667/- (the draft amount with interest) was handed over to the petitioner. The petitioner is said to have deposited the said amount in his personal joint account with his wife. The cheque was dishonoured. Thereafter, the Branch Manager of the Bank asked the petitioner to deposit the same in his loan account. The Cheque in the loan account also bounced. On the aforesaid date, the petitioner filed a complaint (First Information Report) under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act against the then Branch Manger and the present Branch 3 Manager of the Bank as well as the Manager of the A- one Motors. The petitioner filed a case on 13.04.2009, whereas the Bank has filed the present case on 24.12.2009 alleging misappropriation of money. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the main culprit in the entire scenario is A-one Motors, who has issued the cheque which was dishonoured. It is further submitted that the intention of the petitioner can be deciphered from the fact that after receiving the cheque, the petitioner deposited the same in the bank account. The cheque was dishonoured, and as such, the petitioner could not have made the payment of the loan amount to the Bank. On behalf of the Bank, it has been argued that the petitioner was hands in gloves with A-one Motors. There is no material to support the allegation. Although, the petitioner may ultimately be held responsible for making payment of the loan amount, since the cheque was issued in his favour which covers the loan amount issued by the Bank, therefore, the ultimate responsibility will fall upon the petitioner. The main argument on behalf of the Bank however, is that the Cheque ought to have been issued to the Bank. Counsel for the Bank relies on Annexures B/5 and B/6 which is a letter addressed by A-one Motors to Sri 4 Pandey (advocate) informing the Bank that since there was no covering letter issued by the Bank, the cheque was issued in the name of the petitioner. It is submitted that the aforesaid action of the petitioner, according to the counsel for the Bank indicates that the petitioner was hand in gloves with A-one Motors and is therefore, guilty of offence under Sections 420, 467 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act. As far as the question of cheating is concerned, this Court finds that infact the petitioner has not cheated the Bank in any manner. He may have wrongly received the cheque on behalf of the Bank, as actually the cheque ought to have been sent directly to the Bank, but it is difficult to presume that this act would come within four corners of Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code. The reason is that if the petitioner wanted to cheat the Bank, he would not have deposited the Cheque in the Bank. There is no element of deception involved in the sequence of events. It appears to this Court, that the only beneficiary is A-one Motors, who had advantage of depositing the Draft amount in his account, and issuing a Cheque which bounced. Of course, this finding is subject to what A-one Motors raises as defence in his support. A-one Motors has not 5 appeared in this case. Be that as it may, the offence under Section 415 of the Indian Penal Code would not be made out against this petitioner. Similarly, I find that as far as Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code is concerned, which deals with criminal breach of trust, which envisages that a person must be entrusted with some property, which he dishonestly converts for his own use. The facts as stated above indicate that the petitioner deposited the cheque in the Bank, therefore, no case can be made out for misappropriation of the cheque amount. Had the petitioner received cash from A-one Motors, and had not deposited it in the Bank, the conclusion would be obvious. In view of the discussions aforesaid, I quash the First Information Report of Banka Police Station Case No. 535 of 2009 instituted under Sections 406 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code on 24.12.2009, as far as it concerns the petitioner only. This application is allowed. Anand (Sheema Ali Khan, J.)