IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.16921 of 2007 SURAJ NATH S/O BUSHWA NATH PRASAD, SENIOR MANAGER,1ST LINE, REGIONAL OFFICE, INDIAN OVERSEA BANK,NASEEMA BUILDING,WEST GANDHI MAIDAN,PS-GANDHI MAIDAN,PATNA,PRESENTLY POSTED AT SHASTRI NAGAR BRANCH OF INDIAN OVERSEAS BANK PS-SHASTRINAGAR-------------PETITIONER Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. RAJ KUMAR GUPTA S/O RAJENDRA GUPTA M/S KUMAR ENGINEERING WORKS, LANGAR TOLI GALI, PS- KADAMKUAN, PATNA---------------OPPOSITE PARTIES. ----------- For the petitioner: M/s U.P.Chainpuri, Sanjiv Kumar & Saroj Kumar Singh, advocates For the O.P.(State):Mr. Binod Kumar, APP For O.P. No.2: Mr. Ashok Kumar No.1 & Mr. N.K. Nirala, Advocates ----------- 5 1.5.2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel representing the opposite party no.2 as well as learned APP for the State. Petitioner is Senior Manager of Indian Overseas Bank and was posted in the Gandhi Maidan Branch at the relevant time. He has approached this High Court for quashing of the entire proceeding which has been initiated out of a Complaint Case No. 2762 (C) of 2006. Learned SDJM, Patna had taken cognizance vide order dated 2.3.2007 under sections 379, 385 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code. A complaint was filed by one Raj Kumar Gupta, opposite party no.2 before the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Patna on 25.9.2006 for a so called occurrence of the year 1997. The allegation in the complaint was that opposite party no.2 was given the contract for setting up a generator of 30 KVA for providing electricity to the Indian Overseas Bank, located at - 2 - Naseema Building, West Gandhi Maidan, Patna for which opposite party no. 2 was paying monthly rent which was revised from time to time. Subsequently it seems that the Bank decided to rescind the contract and give it to another person due to repeated default on the part of opposite party no.2. He was told of the decision but the same was not readily accepted by him. There is material to show that efforts were taken by the Bank to get the premises occupied by the opposite party no.2 vacated and in this regard certain information was also filed with the Gandhi Maidan police station which is reflected from the annexure brought on record. The complaint is dated 25.9.2006 for an occurrence alleged to have been taken place in the year 1997. The issue became an ego issue between the parties which lead to the filing of the present complaint making several allegations against the petitioner including that he was demanding a bribe to continue with the contract etc. Learned counsel representing the petitioner submits that the case is of one having civil dispute. Even if it is accepted for the sake of argument that the petitioner had illegally demanded bribe for continuance of the contract the opposite party has remedy to approach the proper forum or approach the higher authorities. But filing of the present case in the background of the dispute is only to harass the petitioner making false allegation of - 3 - bribe against him. Learned counsel representing the opposite party no.2 in his counter affidavit has tried to make out a case that the decision of the Bank can be tested and tried during the course of the trial and no relief can be given in the present case. The Court after perusing the material prima facie comes to a considered opinion that the dispute is of civil nature and criminal court has been set in motion which is an abuse of the process of the court and a case has been made out by the petitioner for interference within the parameter laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Bhajan Lal. This application is allowed. Further proceeding in Complaint Case no. 2762 ( c) of 2006 stands quashed including the order taking cognizance dated 2.3.2007 pending in the court of SDJM, Patna. RPS (Ajay Kumar Tripathi,J.)