CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.32563 OF 2000 In the matter of an application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure -------------- AJAY KUMAR, Son of Shri Sarju Ram, resident of Village- Ramma, Police Station-Ramma, District-Muzaffarpur, at present Branch Manager, The United India Insurance Co.Ltd., Hajipur, District- Vaishali --------------- Petitioner Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. Gena Singh, Son of Bishambar Singh, resident of Khalat, Thana- Bidhupur, Vaishali( Complainant) ----------- Opp.Parties. ------------------- For the petitioner: Sri Ashok Priyadarshi, Advocate For the State: Sri Chandrasen Pd.Singh, A.P.P. _________ P R E S E N T THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR Rakesh Kumar, J. The sole petitioner, who was at the relevant time Branch Manager of the United India Insurance Co.Ltd., Hajipur Branch, while invoking inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, has prayed for quashing of an order dated 7.6.2000 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Hajipur in Complaint Case No.164 of 2000. By the said order, the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance of offence under Section 409 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. Short fact of the case is that Opp.Party no.2 filed a complaint, which was registered as Complaint Case No.164 of 2000 in the court of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Vaishali disclosing therein that he had purchased a cow through Allahabad Bank, which was insured by the United India Insurance Company. The period of insurance was between 6.2.1996 and 5.2.1997. It was alleged that two days prior to the expiry of 2 the period of the insurance policy, the cow of the complainant died and thereafter he approached the accused persons for claim. It was alleged that as per the provision, tag issued by Insurance Company was to be handed over by the Bank to the complainant, but the Bank dishonestly never handed over the tag to the complainant and after the death of the cow, despite his best persuasion, the complainant could not get the claim amount. From the complaint, it appears that the complainant has stated that the claim of the complainant was never sent to the Insurance Company by the Bank and on that allegation, the complaint was filed. The learned Magistrate after conducting an enquiry vide its order dated 7.6.2000 took cognizance of the offence under Section 409 of the Indian Penal Code and summoned the accused persons including the petitioner. 3. Aggrieved with the order of cognizance, the petitioner approached this Court by filing the present petition, which was admitted on 12.12.2001. While admitting, this Court had directed for issuance of notice to Opp.Party no.2 and it was further directed that during the pendency of this application, further proceeding in the court below with regard to the petitioner shall remain stayed. Despite service of notice, Opp.Party no.2 has not preferred to appear in the present case. 4. Sri Ashok Priyadarshi, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, while challenging the order of cognizance as well as entire proceeding has raised several points. It was submitted that the complaint petition itself indicates that the complainant never took any step to get postmortem done after the death of his cow. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further referred to the statement made in the complaint 3 petition at internal pages-3 and 4, running pages 10 and 11 that the complainant himself has admitted that the claim of the complainant was never forwarded by Allahabad Bank to the petitioner. In that view of the matter, it was argued that even on the basis of the averments made in the entire complaint petition, no offence is made out against the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also submitted that as per the procedure, at the time of insurance it was required on the part of the Bank to tag the cattle and tag was delivered by the Insurance Company to the Bank. If the cattle is tagged, after the death of the cattle within the policy period, during the postmortem examination, the cattle is identified with the tag and if the number of tag tallies with the claim, the claim amount is disbursed by the Insurance Company. It was further submitted that in any event, the petitioner had taken charge of the Branch Manager in the Insurance Company after the loan amount was disbursed by the Bank. Meaning thereby that at the time of insurance, this petitioner was not posted. On the aforesaid ground, it has been submitted that the order of cognizance as well as entire criminal proceeding so far as the petitioner is concerned is liable to be set aside. 5. Sri Chandrasen Pd. Singh, learned Addl.Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the State in absence of learned counsel appearing on behalf of Opp.Party no.2 has vehemently opposed the prayer of the petitioner. 6. Besides hearing learned counsel for the petitioner and the State , I have also perused the complaint petition and the impugned order. On the basis of complaint petition, the Court is satisfied that on such 4 allegation, the petitioner who was a Branch Manager, cannot be prosecuted. Without going into detail, this Court is of the view that allowing prosecution of the petitioner on such allegation will amount to abuse of the process of the Court. 7. Accordingly, order of cognizance dated 7.6.2000 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Hajipur and proceeding in Complaint Case No.164 of 2000 so far as it relates to the petitioner is hereby set aside and the petition stands allowed. Patna High Court,Patna Dated : the 22nd July,2010 Nawal Kishore Singh/ N.A.F.R. ( Rakesh Kumar, J )