IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.21751 of 2011 Manoj Kumar Srivastava @ Manoj Kr. Sinha, son of late Hari Nandan Prasad Sinha, Branch Manager, Bank of India, Siswan Chainpur Branch, P.S.Siswan, District Siwan, Bihar. Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Bihar. 2. Shankar Dayal Bharati, son of late Vikramaditya Bharati, Village- Nagai, P.S.Siswan, District Siwan. ----------- For the petitioner : Dr.Binay Kumar Singh, Advocate Mr.R.S.Vidyarthi, Advocate. For the State : Mr.Akbar Ali, APP -------- 02 12.07.2011 This petition has been filed with a prayer for quashing the order dated 22.12.2010 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Siwan in Complaint Case No.2184 ( c ) /2010 by which prima- facie case under Sections 403, 420, 465, 120(B) of I.P.C. have been found against the petitioner and the co-accused and accordingly summons were ordered to be issued against them. The instant petitioner being accused no.4 is the Branch Manager of Bank of India, , Siswan Chainpur Branch, who joined the said branch on 21.06.2010. It appears that before his joining, in May /June,2009 during which period he was posted in Elliot Road Branch at Kolkata(West Bengal), the complainant had purchased a vehicle on loan sanctioned by the Bank of India, Siswan Chainpur Branch. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that since he was not posted at Siswan Chainpur Branch at the time of occurrence nor at the time when the amount was sanctioned by the said branch, by no stretch of imagination it can be said that he could in any way be involved in the whole transaction, He further submits with reference to Annexure-5 2 which is an undertaking given by the accused complainant himself to the said bank whereby he has authorized the bank to deduct the monthly instalments from his Pension S.B. Account No.8741. The learned counsel for the State appears but has been unable to show any averments whatsoever as might even remotely suggest involvement of the present petitioner in the offences for which cognizance has been taken. I have perused the materials on record and considered the submissions of the parties and I am of the opinion that in the facts and circumstances of the case where the petitioner was not even posted at the branch at the time of sanctioning of the loan there could be no occasion for his involvement for any offence committed in the transaction in dispute. In other words, even taking of the allegations at face value as far as the present petitioner is concerned, it cannot be said that any offence has been made out as against him. No notice need be issued to the Respondent no.2 (the complainant) as no useful purpose will be served. In this view of the matter, the impugned order dated 22.12.2010 taking cognizance of the offence as against the accused no.4, the present petitioner, is hereby quashed. psc (Vikash Jain, J.)