Ravinder Kumar vs Wazir Chand

G.S. Chahal, J

The petitioner by means of this criminal miscellaneous under Section 482, Cr.P.C. seeks the quashing of the complaint dated 2071987 for an offence under Section 500 Indian Penal Code, pending in the Court of the `Chief ''Judicial Magistrate, Rohtak and the orders dated 26111987 and 20291 passed by that Court.

Wazir Chand was working as a cashier in the Traders'' Bank Ltd., Rohtak while the petitioner was the Head Cashier. An agent of M/s. Shambhu Ram Mahavir Parshad, Rohtak and client of the Bank made an excees payment of Rs. 100/ while making a deposit. Subsequently, the said firm complained about that fact and the staff of the Bank protested against the petitioner and the Manager as a result of which the petitioner was suspended on 2871984. The petitioner lodged FIR No. 334 with Police Station Rohtak, under Sections 384, 452, 506, Indian Penal Code against Wazir Chand respondent and others. After trial the respondent was acquitted. In the complaint filed, the respondent complained that it was a false case and the petitioner had given a false version and levelled false accusations and thus, injured his reputation.

One fact is admitted that an excess amount had been paid by the agent of the said firm while making a deposit in the Bank. The petitioner had admitted this fact before the Manager and on 2671984, the employees of the Bank had asked the Manager for taking action against the petitioner and ultimately, vide order dated 181984, the petitioner had been suspended. In the meantime, the petitioner had lodged a report with the Police on the allegations that on 2571984 at about 10 p.m. five persons, including the respondent, came to his room and after terrifying him with threats of death, got a writing from him that he had received Rs. 1,000/ cash from the said firm and this letter was got addressed to the firm. On the basis of these allegations, he was described to be a dishonest person. The main allegation made against the respondent was that he had got false document executed from him. This allegation was not defamatory although it amounted to making of false accusations and the prosecution launched on the basis of that allegation may be described to be malicious giving rise to a civil wrong for which the respondent could seek his remedy in the Civil Court. However, this will not make out an offence under Section 500, Indian Penal Code. Much can be said for and against the proposition if the writing signed by the petitioner was voluntary or under duress. Since he was the Head Cashier and there was the allegation of extra payment there were equal chances of petitioner having confessed the payment and equal chances of his colleagues forcing him to confess. The allegation that he was forced to sign the document under duress, confessing having received the excess amount, cannot be described to be a defamatory allegation. There are bleak chances of the success of such a charge. I hereby accept the criminal miscellaneous and quash the impugned complaint and the summoning order.