IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.37588 of 2007 RAJENDRA KUMAR LAL SON OF LATE B.N. LAL, RESIDENT OF FLAT NO. 202, MANDOVI APARTMENT,KHAJPURA, P.S. SHASTRI NAGAR, DISTT. PATNA. -------- PETITIONER. Versus 1. STATE OF BIHAR 2. ANIL KUMAR SON OF GAJENDRA SHARMA RESIDENT OF MOHALLA BIRLA COLONY, P.S. PHULWARISHARIF, DISTT. PATNA. ------ OPPOSITE PARTIES. ----------- 4. 05/02/2010 The petitioner is the Branch Manager of Patliputra Gramin Bank, Paliganj and seeks quashing of the entire Proceedings including the order dated 3.3.2006 passed by the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Patna, in Complaint Case 902(C)/05 by which he has taken cognizance for the offence under Sections 420 and 379 of the Indian Penal Code. The case of the Complainant-opposite party No. 2 is that some where around year 2000 he shifted his house and in year 2004 he realised that the accused No. 1 had stolen his National Saving Certificate and Kisan Vikas Patras amounting to 35,000/- rupees and pledged it with the Bank for taking loan. In the complaint the allegation against the present petitioner is that he allowed loan disbursement without proper enquiry into the documents as to whether they were stolen by the accused No. 1. From the documents annexed, it appears that an agreement had been entered into between the accused No. 1 Pramod Singh and the Patliputra Gramin Bank, Paliganj, Patna on 28.2.2000 wherein the present Complainant and his 2 father had signed as guarantors. Thereafter, it appears that accused No. 1 defaulted in payment and, therefore, the Bank on 14.3.2005 sent notices to the accused No. 1 as well as the guarantors including the Complainant and his father. Thereafter, the present complaint was instituted on 30.3.2005 after about 15 days of the notice implicating the present petitioner who happens to be the Branch Manager of Patliputra Gramin Bank. The opposite party No. 2 has appeared and states that the petitioner is liable for prosecution for offence under Sections 420 and 379 of the Indian Penal Code but he is unable to satisfy the court as to how from the averments made in the complaint, any offence is made out against the present petitioner. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that apart from the fact that the ingredients of Sections 420 and 379 I.P.C. are totally missing in the Complaint, the entire complaint is nothing but a counter blast to the steps taken by the Bank Officials and the continuance of the complaint will be an abuse of the process of court and is fit to be set aside. On going through the materials, I am satisfied that from the bare reading of the complaint, no offence whatsoever is made out against the present petitioner and in the background of the steps taken by the Bank Official against the present complainant, it is nothing but a vexatious prosecution. Recently in a case decided by the Hon’ble 3 Supreme Court reported in A.I.R. 2010, (Jan.), Page 201, the Hon’ble Supreme Court quashed a proceeding initiated against the Bank Officials for the very same reason. Under the circumstances, this application is allowed and the entire proceeding including the order dated 3.3.2006 passed by Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Patna, is quashed. S.Ali (Anjana Prakash, J.)