AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Date : 07-08-2026 The petitioner has preferred this application for quashing the order dated 05.08.2016 passed in Criminal Revision No. 48 of 2016 by the learned Sessions Judge, Sitamarhi, dismissing his application challenging the order dated 18.02.2016, whereby cognizance has been taken against him of the offences under Sections 409, 406, 120(B), 467, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code (in short the IPC) as well as to quash the order dated 18.02.2016 passed by the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Pupri at Sitamarhi (in short the SDJM, Pupri at Sitamarhi) in connection with Complaint Case No. C-1/516/2015, whereby the learned Court below has taken cognizance of offences against the petitioner as referred to above.
The complainant/opposite party No. 2, namely, Ram Naresh Choudhary filed a complaint petition in the Court of learned SDJM, Pupri at Sitamarhi on 24.11.2015, alleging inter alia that he was elected as Member of Dadhawari PACS in the year 2009 of which one Rajeev Kumar Choudhary was elected as the Chairman. The joint account of the Dadhawari PACS was opened in the Sursand Branch of the Sitamarhi Central Co-operative Bank Ltd. (in short the Central Co-operative Bank) with joint signature of the Chairman and the Member of the Management Committee, of which, the complainant/opposite party No. 2 was also a Member and as such, he signed on the account opening form with the Chairman of the Dadhawari PACS. It is further alleged that accordingly a bank account of Dadhawari PACS is opened, bearing A/C No. 7674, from which, Rs. 4.92 lacs were withdrawn as an advance to purchase paddy and for defalcation of the same, an FIR was lodged against the complainant/opposite party No. 2 and the Chairman of the Dadhawari PACS.
It is also alleged that the complainant/opposite party No. 2 did not sign the cheque but only after institution of the police case, he came to know that with his signature, some amount were withdrawn from the account of the Dadhawari PACS from the Central Co-operative Bank. It is alleged that the accused persons as named in the complaint petition, i.e., the former PACS Chairman, namely, Rajeev Kumar Choudhary and the petitioner along with one Subodh Pandey, the then Branch Manager, in collusion, withdrew the amount from the Central Co-operative Bank without knowledge of the complainant/opposite party No. 2 and for such withdrawal, the complainant/opposite party No. 2 was made an accused and as such, he had to remain in jail which lowered down his prestige in the estimation of the society.
Hence, the present complaint case has been filed for punishing the accused persons, i.e., the petitioner for the crime committed by him.
The aforesaid complaint case was instituted and numbered as Complaint Case No. 516 of 2015, dated 24.11.2015, in which, solemn affirmation of the complainant/opposite party No. 2 was recorded on the same day, i.e., 24.11.2015 and after due enquiry, the learned SDJM, Pupri at Sitamarhi finding prima facie the case under Sections 409, 406, 420, 120(B), 467, 468 and 471 of the IPC, issued processes against the accused persons including the petitioner for their appearance to face the trial.
Learned counsel for the petitioner points out that the aforesaid order of cognizance was assailed before the learned Sessions Judge, Sitamarhi vide Criminal Revision No. 48 of 2016, wherein, after having heard the parties, learned Sessions Judge by a very cryptic order dated 05.08.2016 dismissed the criminal revision application without properly appreciating the materials brought on record including the allegations made in the complaint application, which, by itself, proves the false implication of petitioner.
Being aggrieved by the order dated 18.02.2016 passed by the learned SDJM, Pupri at Sitamarhi in Complaint Case No. C-1/516/2015, whereby cognizance of the offences has been taken and the order dated 05.08.2016 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Sitamarhi in Criminal Revision No. 48 of 2016, whereby the revision application so preferred against the order taking cognizance has been dismissed, the petitioner has approached this Court, challenging the legality of both the orders so passed by the learned SDJM, Pupri at Sitamarhi and the learned Sessions Judge, Sitamarhi respectively.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that bare perusal of the complaint application itself reveals the true nature of the complaint and it also exposes of real motive of filing the instant complaint case. In the entire complaint, no specific allegation of any overt act committing any breach of trust or misappropriation of money has been made; moreover, no averment with respect to forging, doctoring or manufacturing any document has been leveled, which is specifically attributable to the petitioner. He also submits that the petitioner has committed no crime, but he being the Branch Manager of the Sursand Branch of the Central Co-operative Bank discharging his official duty and the moment he came to know about the illegal transactions and misappropriation of the government fund by the complaintant/opposite party No. 2 and the others, he immediately lodged an FIR vide Sursand P.S. Case No. 27 of 2015 on 04.02.2015 for the offences under Section 420, 406, 409 and 34 of the IPC, in which, the complainant/opposite party No. 2 was taken into custody and he was released on provisional bail only after depositing Rs. 1.50 lacs with an undertaking that the rest amount, out of Rs. 4.99 lacs, could be deposited within six months from the date of his release from the custody.
It has also been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the learned Court below, in course of enquiry, has called for a report from the Branch Manager of the Sitamarhi Co-operative Bank of Sursand Branch vide letter No. 2082 dated 30.11.2015 with respect to Account No. 7674, which has been opened, as alleged, by the complainant/opposite party No. 2, namely, Ram Naresh Choudhary, for the Dadhawari PACS. The Branch Manager has submitted his report to the Court of learned SDJM, Pupri at Sitamarhi vide Memo No. 101 dated 15.12.2005, wherein he has specifically stated that Account No. 7674 maintained with the Central Co-operative Bank, Sursand Branch is the personal account of Ram Naresh Choudhary (the complainant/opposite party No. 2) and has no connection with the Dadhawari PACS. The Branch Manager has also pointed out in his aforesaid report that for the transaction of PACS, a CCP Account was opened vide Account No. - CCP 17 and all the transactions of the Dadhawari PACS were done only through this account, which is the account of Dadhawari PACS and from this account itself, Rs. 4.99 lacs were withdrawn and misappropriated, for which, Sursand P.S. Case No. 27 of 2015 had been registered by the Branch Manager of the Central Co-operative Bank of Sursand Branch, but ignoring the aforesaid letter whereby every documents have been sent to the learned SDJM, Pupri at Sitamarhi in course of enquiry, the order taking cognizance was passed, which is patently illegal and erroneous based on non-appreciation of the proper factual legal aspect of the case.
From the order-sheet, it appears that notices were issued to the complainant/opposite party No. 2 had duly been served, which is evident from the fact that he had already appointed an Advocate to pursue this matter, whereafter Mr. Santosh Kumar Jha and Mr. Lalit Narayan Jha, learned Advocates had put their appearance on behalf of the complainant/opposite party No. 2 by filing Vakalatnama but in-spite of repeated calls, none appeared on behalf of the complainant/opposite party No. 2 to contest the matter on his behalf.
Learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State submits that the order taking cognizance passed by the learned SDJM, Pupri at Sitamarhi is very detailed one, wherein every aspect of the case has been considered and thereafter, having conducted proper enquiry into the matter, cognizance of the offences has been taken and, therefore, there is no illegality in the order and the learned Sessions Judge, Sitamarhi has rightly dismissed the revision application so preferred against the order taking cognizance. Hence, it has been argued that the present application, preferred by the petitioner to quash the order taking cognizance as well as the revisional order passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Sitamarhi, being devoid of merit is fit to be dismissed.
Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents and the materials so brought on record.
The complaint case was admittedly filed on 24.11.2015 and from perusal of the complaint petition and the solemn affirmation of the complainant/opposite party No. 2 recorded on the same date, i.e., 24.11.2015, it is evident that the complainant/opposite party No. 2 has filed this complaint case in order to settle personal scores with the petitioner, the then Branch Manager of the Sursand Branch of Central Co-operative Bank, who lodged an FIR as Sursand P.S. Case No. 27 of 2015 on 04.02.2015, in which, the complainant/opposite party No. 2 was made an accused along with the Chairman of the Dadhawari PACS.
From perusal of the complaint, it is also manifest that in the aforesaid case, i.e., Sursand P.S. Case No. 27 of 2015, the complainant/opposite party No. 2 was arrested and after having remained in custody for over a month, he was released on bail.
The last part of the complaint petition reads as hereunder:
“…………..ifjoknh dk iw.kZ nkok gS fd /kku dz; okLrs vU; fdlh fudklh ds dkxtksa ij ifjoknh gLrk{kj tkyh dj lHkh vfHk;qDrx.k ,d esy ,oa lkftl ds rgn ifjoknh ds fo”okl ds lkFk /kks[kk nsus ds dke fd;k gS ftl dkj.k ifjoknh dks ukgd >qBs eksdneksa esa QWalk dj tsy Hkstok;k x;k gS ftlls ifjoknh dks dkQh cnukeh ,oa lekt es tyhy gksuk iMk gSA …………..”
The real intention of the complainant/opposite party No. 2 for filing the instant complaint case becomes apparent that just in order to settle the personal scores with the petitioner and others, who have lodged the case in February, 2015, almost nine months prior to the present complaint case, the instant complaint case has been filed.
Further, from perusal of Paragraph Nos. 3, 4 and 7 of the solemn affirmation of the complainant/opposite party No. 2, the aforesaid contention of filing the instant case with ulterior motive becomes evidently manifest. Further, from Annexure-2, which is the letter dated 15.12.2015, sent to the learned SDJM, Pupri at Sitamarhi in course of enquiry by the Branch Manager of Central Co-operative Bank of the Sursand Branch, it becomes apparent that Account No. 7674, as mentioned in the complaint application to be the account of the Dadhawari PACS, is, in fact, the personal account of the complainant/opposite party No. 2, namely, Ram Naresh Choudhary, whereas the account of Dadhawari PACS is numbered as Account No. - CCP 17, from which, transactions of PACS related matters were being done and all such withdrawal of Rs. 4.99 lacs for purchase of paddy in advance have been withdrawn from the aforesaid account and for misappropriation of the same, Sursand P.S. Case No. 27 of 2015 was instituted for the offences under Sections 420, 406, 409 and 34 of the IPC against the present complainant, who is opposite party No. 2 herein, and others, in which, after investigation, the police submitted charge-sheet vide Charge-sheet No. 280 of 2015 dated 21.11.2015 for the offences under Section 420, 406, 409 and 34 of the IPC, in which, the complainant/opposite party No. 2 was added as charge-sheeted Accused No. 2 besides three other charge-sheeted accused persons. In the aforesaid charge-sheet, the petitioner herein is the Charge-sheet Witness No. 1.
The aforesaid charge-sheet has been annexed as Annexure-6 to the present application, which makes everything crystal clear and it exposes the real motive of the complainant/opposite party No. 2 for filing the instant case against the petitioner, who was the informant of the aforesaid Sursand P.S. Case No. 27 of 2015 and also a charge-sheet witness in the aforesaid case, in which, the charge-sheet has been submitted against the complainant/opposite party No. 2 and others.
The falsity of the complaint also becomes evident from providing the false account number of the PACS as “7674” by the complainant/opposite party No. 2 in the complaint application as well as in the solemn affirmation, whereas, in fact, this is the personal account number of the complainant/opposite party No. 2, maintained with the Central Co-operative Bank of the Sursand Branch.
Thus, in the aforesaid conspectus of fact and evidence, the entire complaint appears to be vexatious and malicious, wherein, the petitioner, who was the informant and charge-sheet witness in the case lodged in February, 2015 against the complainant/opposite party No. 2 and others, has been made a victim just in order to settle the personal scores for filing the case with respect to misappropriation of the government money.
Further, the mal-intention of the complainant/opposite party No. 2 to implicate the petitioner with false allegations also fortifies from the fact that in the aforesaid Sursand P.S. Case No. 27 of 2015 dated 04.02.2015, the complainant/opposite party No. 2 was arrested by the police and he was allowed to be released on bail after having remained in custody for over a month on depositing of Rs. 1.50 lacs with an undertaking to deposit the rest amount, out of Rs. 4.99 lacs, so withdrawn from the Account No. - CCP 17, the official account of the Dadhawari PACS.
All these facts, which are on record in course of enquiry, have been overlooked, for the reasons best known the learned SDJM, Pupri at Sitamarhi as well as the learned Sessions Judge, Sitamarhi. Had it been taken note of, the result could have been distinctly different and the miscarriage of justice could have been prevented at the very inception itself.
The administration of justice is a solemn function which bestows upon the Courts the statutory legal powers to perform and discharge their duties in order to administer and deliver justice to the persons who approaches the Courts with fair hand and, at the same time, it equally casts an onerous duty on the Courts to prevent miscarriage of justice through the process of enquiry to sieve the malicious prosecution instituted with mal-intention just in order to harass the law abiding persons for settling the personal scores, which, otherwise, would not have been possible, but only on account of setting the criminal Court in motion. The Court proceedings are not a tool in the hand of disgruntled elements to wreak vengeance on the persons who have been discharging their duties and in course of which some persons have been booked for committing offence and as such, the Courts are required to step in to prevent miscarriage of justice.
The Hon’ble Supreme Court, in umpteen number of times and in no uncertain terms, has deprecated the conduct of the officers to allow the judicial proceeding to be used as a tool of oppression to persecute innocent persons instead of prosecuting the genuine culprits, who are in the habit of committing crime by breaching the established legal principles.
In the case of State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal, reported in 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held, particularly in paragraph No. 102(7), that
“proceeding manifestly attended with mala fide, or maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance due to private and personal grudge are liable to be quashed”.
The Hon’ble Supreme Court, while delivering judgment in the case of Indian Oil Corporation Vs. M/s. NEPC India Ltd., reported in (2006) 6 SCC 738, has culled out certain principles to quash the prosecution attended with mala fide, paragraph 9 (ii) of which reads as hereunder:
“9 (ii) A complaint may also be quashed where it is a clear abuse of the process of the court, as when the criminal proceeding is found to have been initiated with malafies/malice for wreaking vengeance or to cause harm, or where the allegations are absurd and inherently improbable.”
In the case of State of Karnataka Vs. L. Muniswamy, reported in (1977) 2 SCC 699, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has in paragraph 7 as follows:-
“7.…………….. In the exercise of this wholesome power, the High Court is entitled to quash a proceeding if it comes to the conclusion that allowing the proceeding to continue would be an abuse of the process of the Court or that the ends of justice require that the proceeding ought to be quashed. …………….”
The reference may also be made to paragraphs 36, 37 and 38 of the judgment delivered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Mohd. Wajid Vs. State of U.P., reported in (2023) 20 SCC 219, wherein it has been held as follows:
“36.At this stage, we would like to observe something important. Whenever an accused comes before the Court invoking either the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) or extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution to get the FIR or the criminal proceedings quashed essentially on the ground that such proceedings are manifestly frivolous or vexatious or instituted with the ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance, then in such circumstances the Court owes a duty to look into the FIR with care and a little more closely.
37.We say so because once the complainant decides to proceed against the accused with an ulterior motive for wreaking personal vengeance, etc., then he would ensure that the FIR/complaint is very well drafted with all the necessary pleadings. The complainant would ensure that the averments made in the FIR/complaint are such that they disclose the necessary ingredients to constitute the alleged offence. Therefore, it will not be just enough for the Court to look into the averments made in the FIR/complaint alone for the purpose of ascertaining whether the necessary ingredients to constitute the alleged offence are disclosed or not.
38.In frivolous or vexatious proceedings, the Court owes a duty to look into many other attending circumstances emerging from the record of the case over and above the averments and, if need be, with due care and circumspection try to read in between the lines. …………………...”
Examining the instant case in view of the principles enunciated hereinabove, it is manifestly evident that from the plain reading of the complaint petition as well as from the solemn affirmation of the complainant/opposite party No. 2, no offence is made out for the offences under Sections 409, 406, 420, 120(B), 467, 468 and 471 of the IPC for which cognizance had been taken by the learned SDJM, Pupri at Sitamarhi.
The falsity of the institution of the present complaint case becomes glaringly evident from the very perusal of the complaint application; the solemn affirmation; Annexure-2 to the present application, wherein a report has been sent by the Branch Manager of the Central Co-operative Bank of the Sursand Bran to the learned Court of SDJM, Pupri at Sitamarhi in course of enquiry; the filing of the FIR vide Sursand P.S. Case No. 27 of 2015 dated 04.02.2015, nine months prior to the present complaint case and submission of charge-sheet in that case on 24.11.2015 as also and incarceration of the complainant/opposite party No. 2 in the aforesaid case for a month, whereafter he has to get himself bailed out only after depositing certain amounts with an undertaking to deposit rest of the amount and further the wrong averment with mal intention has been stated in the complaint petition as well as in the solemn affirmation with respect to the account number of the Bank, i.e., Account No. 7674, which, in fact, is the personal account number of the complainant/opposite party No. 2, whereas the real account of the Dadhawari PACS is Account No. - CCP 17, from which all the fraudulent transactions have been made for which an FIR, bearing Sursand P.S. Case No. 27 of 2015, has been lodged.
The entire gamut of facts and circumstances detailed hereinabove leads to an irresistible conclusion with respect to true nature of the present complaint case, which is nothing but a prosecution instituted with malicious intention just in order to wreak vengeance on the petition which is impermissible in the eyes of law.
Thus, both the orders dated 05.08.2016 and 18.02.2016, referred to above, are, hereby quashed and set aside. The entire criminal proceedings arising out of the Complaint Case No. C-1/516/2015, so far it relates to the petitioner, is, hereby, quashed.
The application stands allowed.
There shall be, however, no order as to costs.
The interlocutory application(s), if any, also stands disposed of.