Criminal Miscellaneous No.13918 OF 1998 ----- In the matter of an application under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. ----- RAMJEE MISHRA son of late Nagina Mishra, permanent resident of village-Mishrawalia, P.S.-Gautam Budh Nagar (Tarwara), Dist.-Siwan, presently posted as Manager, Personal Banking, in the State Bank of India at Sri Krishna Nagar Branch, Patna. ….. ….Petitioner Versus 1.STATE OF BIHAR 2.Onkar Tiwari son of Shri Sheoji Tiwari, resident of village-Tarenwa Madhopur, P.S.-Siwan, Dist.-Siwan. ---- ----- Opp. Party. ------ For the petitioner: Mr.Bashant Kumar Chaudhary, Sr.Advocate and Mr. M.N.Tiwari For Opp. Party No.2:Mr.Satyendra Narayan Singh and Mr. Balmeeki Pandey Bhashkar For the State: Mrs. Indu Bala Pandey. ----- P R E S E N T THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR ------ Rakesh Kumar,J. The petitioner, as alleged in the petition, was Branch Manager of the State Bank of India, Maharajganj, Siwan. He has approached this court while invoking its inherent jurisdiction under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing of the order of cognizance dated 19.3.1998 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, Siwan in Complaint Case No.1017 of 1997. By the impugned order the court below had taken cognizance of the offence under section 406 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. Allegation against the petitioner, as has been asserted in the complaint petition, is that the complainant had applied for loan for purchasing tractor and trolly and the loan was sanctioned in the month of December, 1990. It was alleged that with dishonest intention the petitioner and one Nav-Bharat Ratna 2 Krishi Yantra, (supplier of the trolly) delayed the delivery of tractor and trolly to the complainant due to which the complainant suffered huge loss. It was alleged that the tractor was to be delivered by one Raju Automobiles, Baunia Road, Siwan and trolly was to be delivered by Nav- Bharat Ratna Krishi Yantra, Rasulpur, Siwan. The complainant had alleged in the complaint petition that he had deposited margin money of Rs.30,000/- and in sum and substance it was alleged that with a view to commit fraud this petitioner along with supplier of the trolly delayed the supply of trolly. It was admitted in the complaint petition that loan was sanctioned in favour of the complainant. However, after notice being given on 18.12.1990 the accused supplied the tractor to the complainant. Repeatedly in the complaint petition word ‘fraud’ has been used against the petitioner and one another. However, the basic fact relating to commission of offence particularly offence of fraud is missing in the complaint petition. I have minutely examined the complaint petition. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner, while challenging the order of cognizance, submits that the petitioner was Manager Agriculture, in banking division of the State Bank of India, Maharajganj Branch in the year 1990 and total loan amount of Rs.1,43,200/- was sanctioned and the complainant deposited margin money i.e. Rs.30,000/-. Thereafter, a cheque in favour of supplier of the tractor for an amount of Rs.1,08,000/- was issued on 28,12,1990. On the same date another cheque for an amount of Rs.15,000/-was issued to the supplier of the trolly i.e. accused no.2 3 in the complaint petition. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that after receipt of money the supplier of the tractor supplied the tractor to the complainant. However, due to the reasons best known to the supplier of the trolly, he did not supply the same and finally the cheque amount which was given to the supplier of the trolly was taken back with punitive interest and the said amount was deposited in the account of this petitioner. Learned counsel further submits that the complainant had earlier no grievance with the bank but when the bank, in default of payment by the complainant, filed a certificate case against the complainant only then, with a view to either create the defence or to put pressure on the bank officials, the present complaint was filed by the complainant that too in the year 1997 i.e. after expiry of the period of limitation as enshrined in section 468 of the Cr.P.C. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner while challenging the order of cognizance has mainly raised two points. Firstly, that even if the entire allegation made in the complaint petition is looked into, no offence is made out. Accordingly, he submits that in such a situation the court is not divested with the power to interfere. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that he is aware of limitation of the High Court under section 482 of the Cr.P.C., but at the same time, he submits that, if the court is satisfied that prima facie no offence is made out then it is necessary for the court to interfere. Besides this, he submits that the order of cognizance is liable to be set aside in view of section 4 468(2)(c) of the Cr.P.C. According to this provision if an offence in which maximum punishment is three years then after expiry of period of three years from the date of offence, no court can take cognizance of such an offence and, accordingly, while making alternative submission, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that on this score itself the order of cognizance is liable to be set aside. 5. In this case Mr.Satyendra Narayan Singh, learned counsel, has appeared on behalf of opposite party no.2 by way of filing Vakalatnama. He has seriously raised an objection that this court while exercising its inherent jurisdiction may not interfere with the order of cognizance. He referred to a judgment of Hon’ble the Supreme Court reported in 1994(2) SCC 420 Santosh Dev and another Vs. Archna Guha and others. Referring to the judgment of Hon’ble the Supreme Court, he submits that since at this moment the court had only taken cognizance of the offence, the proceeding before the court may not be interfered with. He also relied upon a judgment of the Supreme Court reported in 1995(3) Cr.L.J.2935 (Ganesh Narayan Hedge Vs. S.Bangarappa) and submits that the Supreme Court has repeatedly passed orders restraining the superior court from interfering at the initial stage or interlocutory stage of a criminal proceeding and on this ground his submission is that this court may refrain from interfering with the impugned order. 6. I have also minutely examined the contents of the complaint petition as well as materials available on record. In the 5 present case it is not in dispute that complaint petition was filed after expiry of period of limitation as prescribed under section 468 of the Cr.P.C. However, learned counsel for opposite party no.2 has submitted that it was continuing offence and cause of action remains alive till the date of filing of the complaint petition. 7. In this case cheque amount, which was given to the supplier of the trolly, was already taken back with punitive interest and credited in the loan account of the complainant as per annexure-5 of the petition. Even for the time being, if it is presumed that the offence, though it is not made out, was committed on 24.10.1992, there is no explanation regarding filing of the complaint petition in the month of November, 1997 which is sufficient to indicate that the complaint was filed after expiry of period of limitation. Besides this, it was categorically stated in paragraph-5 of the petition by the petitioner that before filing of the present complaint petition, bank also filed certificate proceeding against the complainant and, as such, it appears that the present complaint petition was filed with a view to either create defence or to put pressure on the bank officials. So far question of interference by this court at initial stage is concerned, it is not in dispute that time without number the Supreme Court has restrained the superior court from interfering with the case at initial stage or interlocutory stage but at the same time it has been clarified that if the court is satisfied from the materials available on the record that no offence is made out, certainly the court is entitled to interfere into the matter. If such proceeding is not 6 stopped, certainly it would amount to abuse of process of the court and to prevent abuse of process of the court, this court is bound to exercise its power. In the present case the proceeding is liable to be quashed, firstly on the ground of non-disclosure of the cognizable offence, secondly, on the ground of expiry of the period of limitation and thirdly, on the ground that prima facie it appears that the present complaint petition was filed maliciously. 8. In view of the facts and circumstance of the present case, I am satisfied that without commission of cognizable offence, the court below has taken cognizance ignoring the fact that it was also barred by limitation and, as such, the impugned order is set aside and the entire proceeding pursuant to the Complaint Case No.1017 of 1997 pending before the court below is quashed and the petition is allowed. Patna High Court, The 22nd March, 2010 Md.S/NAFR ( Rakesh Kumar, J.)