IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.17190 of 2007 OM PRAKASH SHARMA, SON OF RAM BRIKSHA SHARMA, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE-PUPRI, POLICE STATION-JANAKPUR ROAD, DISTRICT-SITAMARHI, AT PRESENT:-POSTED AS BRANCH MANAGER, NORTH BIHAR CHAMPARAN KSHETRIYA GRAMIN BANK, BRANCH-GURHANWA, POLICE STATION- KUNDWA, CHAINPUR, DISTRICT-EAST CHAMPARAN AT MOTIHARI…………………………………………………...PETITIONER. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR. 2. ANIL KUMAR, SON OF AMARDEV PRASAD, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE-GURHANWA, P.S. KUNDWA-CHAINPUR, DISTRICT-EAST CHAMPARAN AT MOTIHARI. ……………………………………………….OPPOSITE PARTIES. ----------- For the Petitioner : Dr. Amrendra Kumar No.I, Advocate. For the State : Dr. Mayanand Jha, A.P.P. For O.P. No.2 : None. ---------- O R D E R This application at the instance of the sole named accused of Complaint Case No.560(C) of 2006 is for the quashing of the order dated 11.12.2006 passed therein by Sri S.N. Mishra, Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Sikrahana at Motihari, whereby he has taken cognizance for offences under Section 406 I.P.C. against the petitioner. The complainant, one Anil Kumar, impleaded herein as O.P. No.2, filed the aforesaid complaint inter alia alleging the commission of offences punishable under Sections 406, 420, 120B I.P.C. at the hands of the petitioner spread over the period 15.8.2006 till the filing of the complaint. According to the complainant, he - 2 - developed friendship with the petitioner, the Branch Manager of Champaran Kshetriya Gramin Bank, and were on visiting terms. The petitioner is alleged to have requested the complainant to advance him a loan of Rs.10, 000/- to enable him to purchase a motorcycle since he having taken loans from the Bank earlier was not entitled to further loans. The complainant is said to have handed over the desired amount to the petitioner in the presence of witnesses. It is said that in the meantime the complainant who had applied for K.C.C. loan from the Bank was sanctioned the same. It is alleged that when the complainant came to know that the petitioner had not purchased the motorcycle as desired out of the loaned amount, he requested the petitioner to return the same to enable him to reimburse the K.C.C. loan and the petitioner on 11.9.2006 assured to return the same. However, eventually he refused to return the money stating that the same had been adjusted in sanctioning the K.C.C. loan. It is further alleged that on 16.9.2006 the complainant again made a demand for return of the amount loaned but the petitioner refused. It appears from perusal of the order sheet that the complainant appeared in this case pursuant to the notice issued in the admission matter and order dated 19.2.2008 reveals that on a joint prayer of the parties the case was adjourned as there were talks of a compromise. However, on the next date (18.9.2008) the learned counsel for the complainant became conspicuous by his absence and the matter was heard in his absence. Assailing the impugned order, it was sought to be submitted - 3 - on behalf of the petitioner that the instant case had been filed as a counter blast to Kundwa Chainpur P.S. Case No.250 of 2006 dated 13.9.2006 filed by the petitioner against five persons including the complainant and his best friend Shyam Sunder Prasad which after investigation was found to be true and notwithstanding issuance of warrant they are still absconding. It is further submitted that even from a perusal of the complainant’s petition it would appear that the assertions made therein were not only perfidious and frivolous but sniffed of affront and the prosecution of the petitioner in the prevailing circumstances was a clear misuse of the process of the court. Having considered the submissions advanced on behalf of the petitioner which remains unrebutted in the absence of the complainant or his counsel, I am of the opinion that the allegations against the petitioner is not only presumptuous but also lacks the ingredients of an offence under Section 406 I.P.C. Even the impugned order is non sequitur. It is difficult to believe that a person only on the basis of an acquaintance developed over a short time would easily advance a loan of Rs.10,000/- and that too to a person who himself was the Branch Manager of a Bank. It is too difficult to reconcile with the allegation based on a fact that the Branch Manager of a Bank would ask for a loan for purchasing a motor vehicle from a local person that too when soft loans at a negligible rate of interest are available to the employees of the bank for purchasing motor vehicles . The story propounded by the complainant to make out a case - 4 - appears to be too innovative to lay any faith on it. Even otherwise the alleged allegation appears to have arisen out of dispute concerning the advancement of loan and the non-recovery thereof. Though criminal trapping are sought to be given to the transaction, it is in effect a case, which is absolutely of civil nature and does not call for a criminal liability to be fastened on the petitioner. Due regard being had to the facts and circumstances of the case, the impugned order dated 11.12.2006 is hereby quashed and the application is allowed. ( Abhijit Sinha, J ) Patna High Court,Patna Dated: the 27th March,2009 Nawal Kishore Singh/A.F.R.