IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Criminal Misc. Application No. 352 of 2004 Sunil Kumar Agarwal & others … Applicants Vs State of Uttaranchal & another … Opp. Parties Sri Arvind Vashisht, learned counsel for the applicants Sri S.S. Adhikari, learned A.G.A. for the State/respondent No. 1 Hon’ble B.C. Kandpal, J. (Oral) This petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicants/petitioners for quashing the order dated 08.07.2009 passed by the II F.T.C./Additional District Judge, Haridwar in Criminal Revision No. 399 of 2003 as well as order dated 20.08.2003 passed by II Special Judicial Magistrate, Haridwar in Complaint Case No. 88 of 2003, Shiv Kumar Vs Ram Gopal & others. 2. Brief facts of the case are that in the year 1992, petitioner No. 2 – Ram Gopal Gupta was a senior Manager in Punjab National Bank and that the branch of the Bank is situated at Uppar Road, Municipal Branch Haridwar and Shantikunj Branch, Haridwar and four Branch Managers, eight Assistant Branch Managers and 50 other employees were working under his supervision in the aforesaid three branch. The Uppar Road Brnach, Haridwar of the Bank is relevant here in which one Mr. Krishna Kumar was posted as Branch Manager and Sri Satya Prakash Sharma was Assistant Manager and the petitioner No. 1 was posted as Tellor counter, petitioner No. 3 was posted as ledger keeper and the petitioner No. 4 was posted as cashier. The opposite party No. 2 was operating the Saving Account No. 17361 and he applied for issuing a cheque book of the aforesaid A/c No. 17361. Mr. Satya Prakash Sharma, Assistant Branch Manager who was 2 the competent authority for issuing cheque book in favour of opposite party No. 2. The opposite party No. 2 gave a bearer cheque No. 699351 for a sum of Rs. 28,000/- and withdrawn the said amount on 26.09.1992. Thereafter, opposite party No. 2 made a complaint to the bank that he had neither got issued any cheque book nor he issued any cheque mentioned above. On the receipt of the complaint, an inquiry was conducted on 29.12.1992 and his signature was sent for verification. On 04.01.1993, it was opined that the relevant signatures were pieces of forgery. The departmental inquiry of the bank was going on and since the Assistant Manager (S.S. Sharma) was found to be responsible for committing negligence in passing the cheque for payment and comparing signatures a recovery of Rs. 28,000/- was made from his salary so that the interest of the customer may not suffer. Thereafter, opposite party No. 2 gave an application to the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Haridwar which was registered as a First Information Report dated 21.12.1992 as Case Crime No. 1013 of 1992 under Section 420 of I.P.C. The police after investigating the case, submitted the Final Report on 13.01.1994. Again re-investigation order was passed and investigating officer again submitted the final report on 27.08.1998. The opposite party No. 2 filed a protest petition against the final report on 27.08.1998, which was numbered as Case No. 3082 of 1998, Shiv Kumar Vs Ram Gopal Gupta & others before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Haridwar. Thereafter, the statement of complainant was recorded under Section 200 Cr.P.C. and the statements of the witnesses were also recorded under Section 202 of Cr.P.C. On the basis of the statement of the complainant as well as witnesses, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Haridwar issued summons to the petitioners vide order dated 19.07.2001. Thereafter the case was transferred to II Special Judicial Magistrate, 3 Haridwar and was numbered as Complaint Case No. 88 of 2003. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing the entire material available on record, the learned Magistrate has held that no case is made out against the petitioners for the offence punishable under Section 420 of I.P.C., but determined the charge against the petitioners under Section 406 of I.P.C. vide order dated 20.08.2009. Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the petitioners have preferred a revision before the learned Sessions Judge, Haridwar against the said order, which was dismissed vide order dated 08.07.2004 and the learned Sessions Judge modified the order dated 20.08.2003 to the extent that instead of 406 of I.P.C., the charge may be determined against the petitioners under Section 409 of I.P.C. 3. Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment and order, the petitioners have preferred this petition before this Court. 4. Heard Sri Arvind Vashisht, learned counsel for the applicants, Sri S.S. Adhikari, learned A.G.A. for the State/respondent No. 1 and perused the record. 5. Learned counsel for the applicants has submitted before the Court that the impugned orders passed by the courts are without jurisdiction, improper and illegal in the eye of law. He has further submitted that there is no direct evidence available on record against the applicants and the Bank after conducting the inquiry released the disputed amount in the account of the complainant from the person concerned, but the courts below did not consider this aspect and passed the order in a hasty manner and without considering the evidence properly. He has also submitted that 4 there is no role of the applicants in the case and the impugned orders passed by the courts below are liable to be set aside. 6. After hearing learned counsel for the applicants and perusing the entire material available before me, I do not find any serious miscarriage of justice or abuse of process of court in this case. The disputed facts cannot be adjudicated in the petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. I am not supposed to embark upon an enquiry whether the allegations made in the First Information Report are likely to be established by evidence or not. No abuse of process of Court has been committed in passing the impugned order by the learned Magistrate while issing summons to the accused/applicants. The applicants will have opportunity before the trial judge to put forth their grievance. The Hon’ble Apex Court in a case Kailash Verma Vs Punjab State Civil Supplies Corporation & another, reported in 2005(1) Crimes 188 (S.C.) has held that the High Court can entertain a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.c. only when there was serious miscarriage of justice and abuse of process of court or mandatory provisions of law were not applied with and when High Court felt that inherent jurisdiction is to be exercised to correct the mistake committed by the revisional Court. I do not find any mistake in the revisional court’s order. 7. For the reasons recorded above, I do not find any merit in these petitions and the same are liable to be dismissed. 8. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed. The interim order, if any, stands vacated. 5 9. However, in view of the submission raised by learned counsel for the petitioners/applicants that in this matter the bank conducted the inquiry and after the conclusion of inquiry, the entire sum of Rs. 73,835/- was repaid to the petitioner. 10. As far as the case of other employees of the Bank is concerned, they are not liable for any transaction in the Bank and no case is made out against them under Sections 406 and 409 of I.P.C. In case, the petitioners produce the required documents before the court below, the court below shall examine all those documents and decide the matter in accordance with law. (B.C. Kandpal, J.) 18.08.2009 ASWAL