IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CRMMO No.53 of 2009 Date of decision : June 25, 2009 Gurdial Singh …Petitioner. Versus State of H.P. and others …Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surjit Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner : Mr. Rakesh Thakur, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. Ramesh Thakur, Assistant Advocate General, for respondent No.1. Mr. Ashwani Sharma, Advocate, for respondent No.2 Surjit Singh, J ( Oral ) Cr.MMO No.53/2009 Heard and gone through the record. 2. Petitioner is the Chairman of Himachal Gramin Bank, Mandi. The bank had advanced some loan to one Tarsem Lal (respondent No.3, herein). When the loan amount was not paid back, suit was filed. The suit was decreed. Respondent No.3 Tarsem Lal approached Bhagwan Dass (respondent No.2, herein) to get the matter settled with the Bank. Respondent No.2 Bhagwan Dass then approached the present petitioner to settle the liability of respondent No.3 Tarsem Lal, by reducing the amount payable by him. Petitioner asked respondent Bhagwan Dass to deposit a sum of Rs.50,000/- and promised Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? …2… that the matter would be got settled from the Board of Directors of the Bank, within a month and in case no settlement was reached the money would be refunded. No settlement took place, within one month and when respondent No.2 asked for return of the amount of Rs.50,000/-, as is promised by the petitioner, the said amount of money was not returned. Upon that respondent No.2 Bhagwan Dass filed a complaint, under Section 403, 409, 417 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code, against the petitioner. Trial Court recorded preliminary evidence and issued summons against the petitioner, under Section 204 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Petitioner has sought quashing of complaint, by means of the present petition, under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and also gone through the record. 4. From the facts, as narrated hereinabove, which are not in dispute, it is clear that this is not a case of commission of any crime by the petitioner. Admittedly, respondent No.3 Tarsem Lal owed certain amount of money to the Bank, of which the petitioner is the Chairman. Said Tarsem Lal asked respondent No.2 Bhagwan Dass, who has now instituted a complaint against the petitioner, to get settled his liability, Bhagwan Dass approached the petitioner who asked him to deposit Rs.50,000/- and promised to place the matter before the Board of Directors and further promised that in case there was no settlement, the money would be returned. Money has been credited to the loan account of respondent No.3 Tarsem …3… Lal. This fact is also not disputed. If the money has been credited to the loan account of respondent No.3 Tarsem Lal, it cannot be said that the present petitioner has misappropriated the same or committed criminal breach of trust, in respect of the said amount of money. Offence of cheating can also not be said to have been committed by the petitioner, because it was respondent No.2, the complainant, who approached the petitioner, on behalf of respondent No.3 Tarsem Lal, for settling the loan amount and not that the petitioner made any inducement to the complainant (respondent No.2). 5. For the foregoing reasons, the petition is allowed and the complaint filed by respondent No.2 Bhagwan Dass against the petitioner, is quashed. Particulars of the complaint case, which is quashed hereby, are Criminal Complaint No.38- I/06, titled as Bhagwan Dass versus Gurdial Singh. Cr.MP No.270/2009 Infructuous. June 25, 2009(sd) (Surjit Singh), J.