Criminal Miscellaneous No.28759 of 2006 *** In the matter of an application under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure *** 1. S. Ram Krishna Rao, son of Late S. Venkat Rao, former Chief Manager, Indian Overseas Bank, Patna, Main Branch, Hotel Maurya, Frazer Road, Gandhi Maidan, in the Town and District of Patna, at present Chief Manager, Regional Office, Indian Overseas Bank, Nasima Building, West Gandhi Maidan, Police Station- Gandhi Maidan, in the town and district of Patna. 2. Manoj Kumar Datta, son of Late Manoranjan Datta, the then Regional Manager, Indian Overseas Bank, Regional Office, Indian Overseas Bank, Nasima Building, West Gandhi Maidan, Police Station- Gandhi Maidan, in the town and district of Patna presently posted as Asstt. General Manager, Indian Overseas Bank, Regional Officer, Baorda. 3. Randhir Prasad Singh, son of Ram Prasad Singh, Chief Manager, Indian Overseas Bank, Patna, Main Branch, Hotel Maurya, Frazer Road, Gandhi Maidan, in the Town and District of Patna. 4. Kali Prasad Mishra, son of Late Narahari Mishra, Senior Manager, 1st line, Regional Office, Indian Overseas Bank, Nasima Building, West Gandhi Maidan, Police Station- Gandhi Maidan, in the Town and District of Patna. & 5. Suraj Nath, son of Sri Bishwa Nath Prasad, Senior Manager, 1st line, Regional Office, Indian Overseas Bank, Nasima Building, West Gandhi Maidan, Police Station- Gandhi Maidan, in the Town and District of Patna. …Accused/Petitioners Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR & 2. Krishan Mohan Prasad, Son of Late R. N. Prasad, Mohalla- Kazipur Quarter, Road No. 3, Police Station- Kadamkuan in the Town and District of Patna. (Complainant) ….Opposite Parties *** For the petitioner: M/s U. P. Chainpuri, Saroj Kumar Singh & Sanjeev Kumar, Advocates For State : Mr. Mukeshwar Dayal, APP For O. P. No.2 : Mr. Krishna Mohan Prasad, Advocate (In person) *** P R E S E N T THE HON'BLE JUSTICE SMT. ANJANA PRAKASH Anjana Prakash, J. The petitioners seek quashing of the order dated 27.4.2006, by which the Judicial Magistrate, 1st class, Patna, has taken cognizance in the case instituted for the offence under sections 406 and 420 Indian Penal Code in Complaint Case No. 2529© of 2005. - 2 - 2. The matter was heard on 22.9.2006 and admitted on the said date after noticing the opposite party no.2. 3. The case of the complainant is that he had been empanelled as a lawyer for the Indian Overseas Bank, but despite his efficient working his bills were not passed and the petitioner no.3, who is the General Manager of the Bank demanded bribe for passing the same and thereafter got his name delisted from the panel. In course of enquiry conducted under section 202 Cr. P. C. only one witness was examined on behalf of the complainant and thereafter cognizance was taken in the matter opining that an offence under section 406 and 420 Indian Penal Code was made out against the accused persons. Petitioner no.1 happens to be the Chief Manager, Regional Office of Indian Overseas Bank, West Gandhi Maidan, whereas, petitioner no.2 was the then Regional Manager of the said Branch and petitioner no.3 was the Chief Manager, Patna Main Branch and petitioner no.4 and 5 are the Sr. Managers, 1st Line, Regional Office, Indian Overseas Bank. 4. From the perusal of the complaint, I find that the complainant has made sweeping and vague allegations about him having been mentally tortured by the bank officials despite him being a very honest lawyer, who had affected recovery of several loans. The complainant has further alleged that when he raised a Bill dated 2.6.2005 to the tune of Rs.12612/- and Bills dated 21.6.2005, 6.12.2004 and 7.4.2005, those were not being passed by petitioner no.3 for some reason or the other and he instead threatened to delist his name from the panel. He has generally alleged that petitioner no.3 was demanding bribe and threatened him that if he did not do so he would got his name delisted from the panel. However, he failed to specify as to exactly when the demands were made by him and what steps he took in this regard against the petitioner no.3. - 3 - 5. To bring the actions of the petitioners punishable under the Indian Penal Code, one would have to firstly examine as to whether any offence which is classified in section 2(n) of the Code of Criminal Procedure is made out or not since the „offence‟ has been clearly defined as “any act” or omission made punishable by any law for the time being in force and includes any act in respect of which a complaint may be made under section 20 of the Cattle trespass act, 1871. From the perusal of the complaint I find total absence of mention of any act or omission on the part of the accused which would bring them within the purview of a criminal prosecution. 6. Moreover, the essential ingredient of section 406 is that there should have been an „entrustment‟ to the accused persons whereafter dishonest misappropriation of the same only then it would be a criminal breach of trust. Since from the perusal of the complaint petition there is no mention that there has been any entrustment to the accused persons, it is difficult to deduce that offence under section 406 Indian Penal Code is made out against the accused persons. Further, the essential ingredient of section 420 Indian Penal Code is the dishonest inducement to deliver any property to any person but once again since there is no averment that the accused persons ever dishonestly induced the complainant to deliver any property, hence, no offence under section 420 Indian Penal Code is made out. 7. Since the essential ingredients of both sections are absent, I find no reason why this application should not be allowed, more so, because the Hon‟ble Supreme Court recently in a decision reported in (2010) 5 SCC page 600 (S. Khushboo Vs. Kanniammal and another) para 20 while reiterating the well known decision of Shakson Belthissor Vs. State of Kerala [(2009) 14 SCC 466] after sounding a word of caution has quoted relevant portion that the Court while exercising its jurisdiction - 4 - under section 482 Cr. P. C. should not hesitate to intervene in appropriate cases and is in fact duty bound to ensure that a person who is “apparently innocent is not subjected to persecution and humiliation on the basis of a false and wholly untenable complaint”. 8. In view of such, this application is allowed and the entire complaint being Complaint Case no.2529 © of 2005 including the order dated 27.4.2006 by which cognizance was taken by the Judicial Magistrate, 1st class, Patna, is hereby quashed. (Anjana Prakash, J.) Patna High Court, Patna Dated the 6th July, 2010 NAFR / JA/-