IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.11066 of 2007 RAJENDRA PRASAD YADAV & ANR Versus STATE OF BIHAR ----------- For the Petitioners : Mr. Sanjay Kumar Sharma, Advocate. For the State : Mr. Jharkhandi Upadhayay, A.P.P. For O.P. No.2 : Mr. Sanjay Kumar Ghosarvey, Advocate. ----------- O R D E R Two of the four persons arrayed as accused in Complaint Case No.679(C) of 2006 have prayed for the quashing of the order dated 18.4.2006 passed therein by Sri A. Kumar, Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Araria, whereby he has taken cognizance of offences under Sections 120-B/406/420/504 I.P.C. against all the accused including the petitioners and has directed for issuance of process against all the accused persons. The complainant, Md. Arshad Hussain, impleaded herein as O.P. No.2, filed the aforesaid complaint stating inter alia that on 9.2.2003, Md. Sharif, Rehan Alam and Rudranand Jha, came to his house and Md. Sharif introduced himself as a resident of village-Gaiyari and cashier of the Araria Branch of the Purnea Central Cooperative Bank and that Rehan Alam, was his nephew, as an agent of the said Bank whereas Rudranand Jha was the present Branch Manager. They requested him to deposit some money whereupon he signed on the introduction form brought by them and gave a sum of Rs.250/- whereafter they went away. Thereafter, it is alleged that on 22.2.2003, Rehan Alam came and furnished him with the pass-book of the Bank - 2 - bearing Account No.0159-C and it was shown to have been initiated on 10.2.2003 and further a sum of Rs.250/- in cash was handed over to Rehan for being deposited in his account and the same was entered in the pass-book by Rehan. It is further alleged that Rehan frequently visited him and the complainant in good faith used to hand over to him whatever money was available in his pocket which could be in the range from any where from Rs.500/- to Rs.2000/- and in this manner a total sum of Rs.84000/- had been deposited with the bank till 14.3.2004, all of which was entered in the pass-book by Rehan. It is said that when the economic condition of the complainant deteriorated and he was not in a position to continue with the said account Rehan stopped coming to him. It is alleged that on 9.10.2004 he gave a petition to the Branch Manager of the said Bank for returning the money in his account which he received and gave out that after accounting he would give the amount but thereafter he kept evading the matter and even a legal notice had no effect. It is alleged that on 4.4.2006 at about 3 P.M. the complainant along with witnesses went to the Bank where Rehan, Md. Sharif and Rajendra Prasad Yadav, the new Branch Manager, were available and on a request for refund of the money, Rehan and Md. Sharif gave out that the money would not be returned and he may do anything which he likes. The Branch Manager added that his account was indeed in their Bank but the amount in the account in the bank and that reflected in the pass-book did not tally and that it was for Rehan, Sharif and the previous Branch Manager to explain. It is further alleged that when he requested the Branch Manager to take action he showed - 3 - his disinclination. It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioners that they are innocent and have been falsely implicated in this case and it would be apparent from the complaint petition itself that they had not committed any offence except that the petitioner no.2 had introduced one Rehan Alam to the complainant and petitioner no.1 had no role to play. It was further submitted that as per the allegations made in the complaint petition itself, it would be apparent that it was the said Rehan Alam who used to collect the money from the complainant and made entries in his pass-book and the petitioners had no role to play therein and the learned Magistrate while taking cognizance had not applied his mind in a judicial manner. It was further submitted that none of the Sections whereunder cognizance had been taken would apply to the petitioners and that they are only being harassed by way of the false proceeding. The evidence adduced at he inquiry under Section 202 Cr.P.C. has not been made available with the instant application but if the allegations made in the complaint petition are to be believed, it was petitioner no.2, Md. Sharif, who had approached the complainant, introduced himself as cashier of the Araria Branch of the Bank and had introduced Rehan as his nephew and an agent of the said Bank and it was in good faith that the petitioners had placed trust upon them. To that extent petitioner no.2 in some way can be said to be associated with the overt acts of Rehan Alam and I find no fault in the learned Magistrate taking cognizance against him. So far as petitioner no.1, Rajendra Prasad Yadav, is concerned, he happens to be the present - 4 - Branch Manager of the Bank in question and although he was not responsible for goading the complainant of opening an account with them he certainly could have taken steps when it was detected that the entries made in the pass-book of the complainant did not tally with the account maintained in his Bank and that too when Rehan Alam was an agent of his Bank and had collected money at intervals from the complainant and had also made entries in the pass-book. It is by now well settled that since the object of an enquiry under Section 202 Cr.P.C. is to ascertain whether the allegations made in the complaint are intrinsically true , the Magistrate acting under Section 203 Cr.P.C. has to satisfy himself that there is sufficient grounds for proceeding. In order to come to this conclusion he is to consider the evidence taken or recorded by him in the inquiry under Section 202 Cr.P.C. and he is not entitled to rely upon any other material besides this. Where there is prima facie evidence, even though an accused may have a plausable defence that the offence is committed by some other person or persons, the matter has to be left to be decided by the appropriate forum at the appropriate stage and the issue of process cannot be refused. Reference may be made to the case of Chandra Deo Versus Prakash Chandra (AIR 1963 SC 1430). In view of the categoric observations of the Supreme Court aforementioned, I find no merit in this application which is dismissed. (Abhijit Sinha,J) Patna High Court, Patna. Dated: The 5th of September, 2008. Pradeep Srivastava/A.F.R.