Renu Sehtiya vs State of Punjab and Another

Gurdev Singh, J.—Heard.

This petition u/s 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure invoking the inherent jurisdiction of this Court has been filed by Renu Sehtiya, petitioner, for quashing FIR No. 59 dated 11.3.2005 registered under Sections 409 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code in Police Station, City Kapurthala.

According to the petitioner, she was only joint custodian of the cash and holding cash keys along with R.S.S. Kohali, Deputy Manager and Sh. Kuldip Malik, Computer Operator. As per the banking rules, one set of keys was kept by the Head Cashier and the other set of keys was kept by the Officer In Charge of the cash. On 22.2.2005 at about 5-00 p.m., the cash was checked and closed by the said two bank officers and she was allowed to leave the bank only after that checking. Thereafter, she could not attend the bank on account of the fact that she had met with an accident. After 22.2.2005, she was not entrusted with any such cash nor was having any dominion on the cash of the bank.

This FIR was registered on the basis of the written application of Surinder Kumar Dheer, Senior Manager of Punjab National Bank, Kapurthala. He narrated therein that the present petitioner was the Head Cashier. A complaint was received against her that she had not been crediting the cash amounts, those were being deposited, in the Books of the bank on the same day. A sum of Rs. 3 lacs was deposited with her on 12.1.2005 and she made an entry to that effect in the bank record on 11.2.2005. Similarly, a sum of Rs. 4 lacs was received by her on 11.2.2005, but she credited that amount in the Books of the bank on 22.2.2005. She absented herself from the bank on 23.2.2005 with the keys of the Strong Room. Those were produced by her husband and the cash amount in the Strong Room was checked in the presence of number of officers of the bank and her husband. It was found that as against the sum of Rs. 29.00.488,39 as entered in the account books of the bank, only a sum of Rs. 26,00,48 8.30 was lying in the Strong Room and thus, she embezzled the sum of Rs. 3 Lacs.

It has been contended by the special power of attorney of the petitioner that the petitioner was not the exclusive custodian of the cash amount and the same was used to be in the joint custody of the Head Cashier, Officer In Charge and Manager of the bank. Therefore, it cannot be said that any such offence u/s 409 of the Indian Penal Code is made out against the petitioner.

This contention of the special power of attorney of the petitioner is devoid of merit. The petitioner was the Head Cashier and was having one set of keys of the Strong Room. As the Cashier, it was her duty to make entries of the cash amount in the Books of the bank. Besides the above said embezzlement of Rs. 3 lacs, there is another allegation against her, in the FIR, that she had been making entries of credit in the Account Books of the bank after lapse of many days. A bare perusal of the FIR makes it clear that offence u/s 409 IPC is made out against the petitioner. There is no ground for quashing the FIR.

Petition is dismissed accordingly.