Narinder Singh Oberoi & anr. vs State of Punjab

J.S. Sekhon, J.

Ram Nath complainant is a partner of M/s Agnihotri Traders, Mandi Gobindgarh. Two cheques drawn on Union Bank of India, Mandi Gobindgarh were issued by M/s Kaushal Steel Rolling Mill and M/s Sharma Iron Store, Mandi Gobindgarh in favour of his partnership concern. The complainant allegedly handed over these cheques to the Central Bank of India, Mandi Gobindgarh for collecting these amounts from the union Bank of India and credit the same in its account, but later on it was found that the amounts were not collected by the Central Bank of India from the Union Bank of India but instead some fictitious person after opening an account with the Union Bank of India had withdrawn the amounts. Under these circumstances, it is maintained that Narinder Singh Oberoi, Accountant of the Union Bank of India and Jasbir Singh, Officer of that Bank had connived with the other persons and indulged in forging the fictitious account. On these allegations, the complainant lodged FIR No. 5 dated 1611988 for offences under sections 379, 420, 465, 457, 468, 471, 120B, Indian Penal Code. The accused, petitioners had sought quashment of the F.I.R. through this petition under section 432 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

I have heard the learned counsel for the parties besides perusing the F.I.R. Admittedly, the complainant firm had no account with the Union Bank of India. Thus, the accused petitioners were not expected to know the names of the partners of the complainantfirm. Thus, even if one Prem Kumar alleging himself to be partner of that firm had opened an account with the Union Bank of India after he was allegedly introduced by M/s Sharma Iron Store, it would not amount to conniving with the aforesaid Prem Kumar in fabricating false document and at the most it would amount to some lapse on the part of the accusedpetitioners as they did not summon personally Anil Kumar, partner of M/s Sharma Iron Store for verifying whether that concern had issued a genuine introduction letter. It is note worthy that in the banking business such like introductory letters are taken by the official at their face value.

Under these circumstances, the allegations in the first information of report, even if taken to be true, are not sufficient to attract the mischief any of the criminal offences. Thus, the first information report and the proceedings arising thereform are quashed by accepting this petition.