IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR.MISC. NO.13124 OF 2009 NARENDRA KUMAR, SON OF LATE MUSAFIR SINGH, RESIDENT OF MOHALLA RAM NAGAR, POST OFFICE AND POLICE STATION AND DISTRICT NAWADA VERSUS THE STATE OF BIHAR ********** FOR THE PETITIONER :- MR. RAM SURESH RAY, SR. ADVOCATE MR. ARVIND KUMAR SINGH, ADVOCATE FOR THE INFORMANT :- MR. CHITRANJAN SINHA, SR. ADVOCATE MR. D. P. SINGH, ADVOCATE FOR THE S T A T E :- MR. JHARKHANDI UPADHAYAY, A.P.P. ************* 4 30/10/2009 Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner, the informant and the A.P.P. appearing on behalf of the State. The petitioner at the time of the occurrence was the honorary Secretary of Nawada Central Co- operative Bank (hereinafter referred to as the Bank). The allegations in the First Information Report is that the brother of the petitioner Kavindra Deo who was the President of the Nawada Motor Transport Society in the year 1986 along with other members of the managing committee took a loan of Rs. Ten lacs from the Bank and it is alleged that the loan amount was granted in a hurry without any collateral and security to the bank and that the petitioner who was the brother of the said Kavinder Deo who was the Honorary Secretary of the 2 Bank was the main person who was able to influence the Managing Director of the bank to grant loan. The Court below has taken cognizance under Section 406, 420, 120B of the Indian Penal Code. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has argued that merely because the petitioner was the honorary Secretary of the Bank, it cannot be presumed that he was instrumental in grant of loan as such there is insufficient materials to presume that an offence is made out under Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioner It is also submitted that the bank in question was superseded and no action was taken by the bank to file a case and the present case has been filed after a delay for the reason that the petitioner has again been elected as the President of the Bank. It is alleged that the Managing Director does not want the elected body to manage the bank and as such he has been taking several steps in this direction like filing certificate cases without impleading society as a party in the case. Those certificate proceedings have been quashed in the writ applications filed in this court. It is also submitted that on the basis of mere suspicion, the petitioner is being involved in this case. Lastly, learned counsel submits that the case is with respect to a civil dispute for which a bank is taking steps by filing 3 certificate cases and as such a criminal case is unwarranted. Several documents have been produced on behalf of the petitioner to indicate that the petitioner was not involved in the grant of loan and merely on the ground that he was honorary Secretary at the time the loan amount was granted, his name has been dragged in this case. This Court at this stage has only to see whether prima facie case is made out against the petitioner or but it cannot judge whether the ingredients of Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code is proved against the petitioner. All these points raised by the petitioner can be raised and argued at the appropriate stage. However, this Court is not inclined to interfere by quashing the order taking cognizance at this stage. This application is thus dismissed. Anand ( Sheema Ali Khan, J.)