IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.37685 of 2007 ATUL VERMA SON OF KAPIL DEO VERMA RESIDENT OF 707, SHIVAM RESIDENCY GARDEN, KHAJPURA, P.S.- SHASTRINAGAR, DISTRICT- PATNA Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. SRI UMESHWAR PRASAD, SON OF LATE DAMODAR PRASAD, THEN MANAGER, MAIN BRANCH, STATE BANK OF INDIA, PATNA. 3. THE MANAGER, STATE BANK OF INDIA, MAIN BRANCH, PATNA. For the petitioner : Mr. Purunandu Singh, Advocate For the State : Mr. Amitesh Kumar APP For the S.B.I. : Mr. Avinash Kumar, Advocate ----------- 7 12.08.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, the Bank and the State. Petitioner runs a shop in the township of Patna and is facing prosecution under diverse sections of Indian Penal Code including Section 420, 467, 468 of Indian Penal Code. The informant in the present case is the official of the State Bank of India. Allegation precisely in the written report is that a draft for a sum of Rs. 90,500/- issued by the State Bank of India, Bhagalpur Branch payable in favour of the petitioner firm was presented by the petitioner in the account which he held with the Federal Bank of India for encashment. Such presentation was made on 31.1.2003. The bank sent the said cheque for clearance to the Clearing House. The Clearing House of the S.B.I allowed clearance on 1.2.2003. The said amount was accordingly credited in the account of the petitioner. Six months later, the present F.I.R. was lodged on 7.6.2003, alleging therein that the draft which was presented for encashment was stolen/lost draft 2 from Bharti, Kanpur Branch which prompted investigation. The Investigating Officer found that few circumstances raise suspicion against the petitioner and as such charge-sheet was submitted leading to order taking cognizance. An application for discharge was filed on behalf of the petitioner in terms of Section 239 of Cr.P.C. (for short the Code) which was considered and rejected. It is to be recorded here that the officials of Federal Bank of India and S.B.I. who were involved in initial clearance of the draft amount and thereafter allowing credit the value of the draft in the account of the petitioner are not facing prosecution. Aforesaid application was considered and rejected by the learned court below precisely on the ground that the admitted position is that the petitioner presented the draft for encashment through the aforesaid Bank and the amount was credited into his account. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that while seeking anticipatory bail before this Court in Cr. Misc. no. 3137 of 2004 (Atul Verma versus The State of Bihar) as per the direction of the Court, the draft amount was paid to the S.B.I. Main Branch by D.D. no. 904625 dated 3.2.2004. While assailing the order impugned, it is submitted that the petitioner was running a shop of computer parts. A customer approached him for purchase of certain items. Initially he got a quotation which was supplied to him promptly. He came back again and placed orders of articles worth Rs. 90,511/-. The said 3 customer gave him the consideration money by way of the draft in question duly issued in the name of the firm/company/shop of the petitioner. The delivery of the article was deferred and the demand draft was submitted on 31.3.2003 for encashment in the Federal Bank of India where the firm holds a current account. The amount was credited on 3.2.2003 and thereafter on 3.3.2003 the articles were delivered vide sale receipt dated 3.3.2003 (Annexure-3). Learned counsel for the petitioner thus submits that in fact the petitioner has also been cheated by the customer who presented draft in lieu of the articles ordered by and delivered to him. It is further submitted that the petitioner although has not committed any offence which can be shown to have been prima facie proved during investigation yet he is prepared to forgo the amount which he already paid to the S.B.I. under the orders of the Court while seeking anticipatory bail in order to buy peace. Learned counsel representing the State on going through the materials reflected in the case diary submits that the materials available therein remotely indicate the complicity of the petitioner. He thus concedes that the investigation only indicates a suspicion against the petitioner in the commission of the alleged offence. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Bank submits that if the petitioner is prepared to forgo the said amount which has been paid back to the Bank then the Bank shall not pursue the present prosecution, particularly when the 4 Investigating Agency has also found only a suspicion so far as complicity of the petitioner in the alleged offence is concerned. He fairly states that there may be a possible situation where the petitioner might have also been cheated by a person who is unfortunately not made accused and is facing the present prosecution. In view of the particular facts of the case and the stand of the parties before this Court, I am convinced that the continuance of the present proceeding shall be a sheer abuse of the process of the Court, they require to be interfered with and quashed in the ends of justice. I order accordingly. Order dated 21.6.2007, modified by order dated 4.7.2007 passed in Gandhi Maidan P.S. case no. 165 of 2003 (G.R. no. 2226 of 2003) and the entire criminal proceeding stand quashed. pkj ( Kishore K. Mandal, J. )