IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.24015 of 2002 SHYAM MEHROTRA Versus STATE OF BIHAR & ANR ----------- For the Petitioner : Shri Anjani Kumar Mishra, Advocate For the State : Shri Dashrath Mehta, APP 6/ 19.8.2010 Heard learned counsel for the parties. The petition seeks quashing of the order of cognizance dated 16.4.2002 passed by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Nawada in Complaint Case no. 889 of 2000 / Tr. No. 832 of 2002, by which the petitioner was summoned to stand his trial under section 354 of the IPC. The allegation is that the complainant had applied for getting loan under Pradhan Mantri Rojgar Yojna and the District Industrial Centre, Nawada had forwarded his application to the Punjab National Bank, Kauakol, of which petitioner was the Branch Manager at the relevant time. The complainant went in the bank on getting a notice to appear before the petitioner and found that she was being harassed and called very off and on and, lastly, was demanded to pay 10% of the loan amount by way of bribe. It is further admitted by the complainant that for similar acts of the petitioner, she had filed another Complaint Petition no. 554 of 1999 and that was withdrawn after the petitioner had apologized to the complainant but, the petitioner did not mend his ways and, again, called the complainant to his bank on 3.10.2000, when the complainant was called to the residence of the petitioner in the evening, she went there accompanied by her Debar, who after sitting 2 there for a while, was asked by the complainant to call his brother and thereafter the petitioner is alleged to have attempted to violate the lady and also committed theft of her gold ornaments. It was contended that, in fact, the complainant was defaulter in payment of loans as may appear from Annexure 8, which is a report from the Nawada Central Cooperative Bank, Nawada and under rules it was prohibited to grant a loan under the above noted scheme to any such applicant. It was further contended that the joint family income of the complainant was above Rs.24000 and as such, rules did not permit grant of a loan to an applicant, like, the complainant. Besides, it was contended that she was simply pressurizing the petitioner to act against the rules so as to granting the loan to the complainant. Further contention was that the application of the complainant was processed and on account of the adverse rules and her case not being found fit for granting loan, the same was not recommended for being granted by the concerned official of the bank. In support of the contention the photo copy of the application of the complainant has been annexed as Annexure 2. It is true that the complainant has leveled allegations but, it is also admitted that she had earlier filed complaint of the same class. Some documents which have been placed on the present record, indicate that there could be obstruction by rules in granting loan to the complainant. The petitioner has pleaded being harassed and made an accused on false allegations so that he could yield to the pressure of the lady and grant loan to her. 3 On perusing the annexed documents to the present petition, what is found is that the lady could not have been granted loan on account of many reasons as have been pointed out just now while recording the submission of the petitioner. The lady had earlier filed a complaint petition against the petitioner. The relationship between the two might not be as cordial as is expected so that the petitioner could be calling the complainant to her residence. The other aspect of the case is that it was not that the lady was going to the residence of the petitioner all alone. She was being accompanied by her Debar. As such, the averments made in the complaint petition itself would indicate as to why the petitioner could be calling a lady to his residence. It is not that the lady was not apprehending those things, as she has alleged in the complaint petition but, still she claims going to the residence of the petitioner where the petitioner is alleged to have attempted to violate her. Allegation, on the face of it, appears absurd and inherently improbable, considering which, the prosecution launched against the petitioner in the above mentioned complaint case through the impugned order is hereby quashed. The petition succeeds. Anil/ ( Dharnidhar Jha, J.)