IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr. Misc. No.37287 of 2007 SURESH KUMAR GUPTA, son of Late Radha Kant Gupta, resident of Barmasia, P.S. and District- Katihar, At present Senior Manager, Punjab National Bank, B/O M.G. Road, Katihar, District- Katihar. ...Petitioner Versus 1. STATE OF BIHAR & 2. Md. Moin, son of Late Md. Hanif Ansari, resident of Hariganj Mohalla, Ward No.22, P.S. and District- Katihar …Opposite Parties ----------- 4/ 29.01.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. No one appears for the opposite party no.2. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 14.2.2007 passed in C. A. No.2696 of 2005, by which the Judicial Magistrate, Katihar, has taken cognizance for the offence under section 420 and 406 of the Indian Penal Code. The complainant, who was General Secretary of the Bihar Pradesh Lok Janshakti Party (Minority Cell), filed the present complaint against the petitioner, who was the Branch Manager of Punjab National Bank, M.G. Road Branch, Katihar, stating therein that in the month of July, 2005, he approached the present petitioner for a loan of rupees ten lacs upon which he was given certain forms and told to fill them up and deposit the margin money. On a certain date, the complainant deposited the margin money of rupees 1 lac with the present petitioner along with forms and left the bank. But later on, he learnt that rupees one lac which he had handed over to the petitioner was not credited in his account. So, he demanded the return of the same. At this, the petitioner reportedly returned rupees ninety thousand to him and threw all the loan papers and got him pushed out the bank stating that he would not be granted loan so long as the petitioner was - 2 - posted there. On going through the facts of the case, I find that the complainant is a person of some position in the society despite which he did not approach either the police or any of the higher officials of the bank against the misdeeds of the present petitioner. Moreover, the date on which the complainant is said to have approached the present petitioner for loan and submission of the document appears to be 15th August, 2005, which is a national holiday, and 28.8.2005, which is Sunday and, therefore, at the very outset it appears that the complaint is nothing but a mischievous act of the complainant to harass the present petitioner. Moreover, on going through the petition, I find that as per the rules of the Punjab National Bank, for home loans margin money of 20% is required and not 10% as mentioned by the complainant, so, there was no question of giving rupees one lac for a loan of Rs.20 lacs. The principles of quashing are well enumerated in a decision reported in AIR 1992 SC 604 (State of Haryana and others Vs. Ch. Bhajan Lal and others), wherein one of the illustrations for quashing the complaint is also “7. Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge.” For the reasons stated above, I find that the complaint is totally vexatious and it would be in the interest of justice to quash the - 3 - proceeding at the inception so that there is no further abuse of the process of the court. In the result, this application is allowed. The order dated 14.2.2007 passed in C.A. No.2696 of 2005, by the Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Katihar, taking cognizance against the petitioner under sections 420 and 406 of the Indian Penal Code is hereby quashed. JA/- (Anjana Prakash, J.)