Sanjay Manhas vs State of Punjab

H.S. Grewal, J.(Oral)

The present petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of FIR No. 86 dated 11.07.2020, registered under Sections 418, 409 and 420 IPC at Police Station Mukerian, District Hoshiarpur, along with the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom, including the final report/charge-sheet (Annexure P-4).

The case of the prosecution is that complainant Sanjiv Sharma and his wife Monika Sharma were maintaining various accounts with Indian Overseas Bank, Mukerian. The complainant alleged that the petitioner, while working as Branch Manager, had withdrawn/caused transfer of certain amounts from the bank accounts of the complainant and his wife without their consent and had transferred the same into other bank accounts. It is further alleged that certain loan and other accounts had been opened and operated in his name and in the name of his wife without their proper knowledge or consent. During the course of the preliminary inquiry, it was alleged that the signatures of the complainant and his wife were not available on the relevant vouchers and that amounts from their accounts had been transferred into the accounts of other persons. The inquiry report recorded that the transfers had been made without the consent of the complainant and his wife and the matter was thereafter referred for legal opinion. The police authorities thereafter conducted another inquiry and, on the basis of the subsequent inquiry report and legal opinion, Section 420 IPC was deleted and Section 403 IPC was added. Three other persons, namely Karan Kumar, Tilak Raj and Satish Kumar, whose accounts had allegedly received amounts transferred from the account of the complainant's wife, were also nominated as accused for the offence under Section 403 IPC

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated and he was merely working as the Branch Manager and had no personal interest in the alleged transactions. According to learned counsel, the petitioner was neither a beneficiary of the alleged transfers nor did he withdraw any amount from the accounts of the complainant or his wife. It is submitted that the allegations have been levelled against the petitioner merely because he was the Branch Manager at the relevant time, whereas there is no specific material showing that he personally misappropriated any amount or acted with dishonest intention. Learned counsel has also drawn the attention of this Court to the vigilance inquiry conducted by the bank. It is submitted that the matter had already been examined by the Vigilance Department of Indian Overseas Bank and the police authorities had sought the outcome of the said inquiry. Learned counsel further submits that the internal vigilance inquiry found only procedural lapses and did not find the petitioner responsible for the acts as alleged in the FIR. Learned counsel further submits that the alleged transactions were not of such a nature as to establish that the petitioner had dishonestly misappropriated the money for his own benefit. It is also submitted that as and when it has been noticed that certain entries were made by the bank staff, the same were subsequently reversed and there is no material showing that the petitioner had retained or personally appropriated the alleged amount. The mere fact that the petitioner was the Branch Manager, or that the transactions took place during his tenure, cannot constitute the offences under Sections 409, 418 or 403 IPC.

It is further submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the complainant had subsequently entered into a compromise with the other co-accused, namely Karan Kumar, Tilak Raj and Satish Kumar, who had approached this Court seeking quashing of the FIR on the basis of compromise. He has pointed out to the order passed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in CRM-M-26682-2023, dated 12.01.2024, whereby the impugned FIR has been quashed against the said co-accused on the basis of compromise. It is, therefore, submitted that the complainant has no surviving grievance and no prejudice would be caused to him in case the proceedings against the petitioner are also quashed. Learned counsel accordingly claims parity with the said co-accused and prays for quashing of the FIR and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom.

Per contra, learned State counsel opposes the prayer made in the present petition and submits that the allegations in the FIR disclose commission of cognizable offences and that the petitioner, being the Branch Manager at the relevant time, cannot seek quashing merely on the basis of his denial of the allegations. It is submitted that there are disputed questions of fact which require appreciation of evidence. Learned State counsel, however, does not dispute that the FIR has already been quashed qua the aforesaid co-accused pursuant to the compromise.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.

Admittedly, the petitioner was working as Branch Manager of Indian Overseas Bank, Mukerian, at the relevant time. The allegations against him arise out of certain transactions carried out from the accounts of the complainant and his wife. However, there is no allegation that the petitioner himself received or retained any part of the alleged amount transferred from the accounts of the complainant or his wife. There is also no material placed on record to show that the alleged amounts were transferred for the personal benefit of the petitioner. It is also relevant to notice that the matter was examined by the Vigilance Department of the Bank and the said inquiry did not find the petitioner personally responsible for misappropriation of the alleged amounts and noticed only procedural lapses.

Furthermore, the complainant has entered into a compromise with the other co-accused, namely Karan Kumar, Tilak Kumar and Satish Kumar, and the Coordinate Bench of this Court, vide order dated 12.01.2024 passed in CRM-M-26682-2023, has already quashed the FIR against them on the basis of the said compromise. Thus, the dispute relating to the alleged transfers has substantially come to an end.

In view of the aforesaid circumstances, and particularly the absence of specific material connecting the petitioner with any personal misappropriation or dishonest gain, continuation of the proceedings against him would not advance the cause of justice and would amount to an abuse of the process of law. Reference may be made to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Haryana vs. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335, wherein it has been held that the inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. can be invoked to prevent abuse of the process of law and to secure the ends of justice, particularly in cases where the allegations, even if accepted in their entirety, do not prima facie disclose the commission of any offence.

In view of the overall discussions and keeping in view the facts and circumstances of this case, this Court is of the considered view that the continuation of the proceedings against the petitioner would amount to an abuse of the process of law.

Consequently, the present petition is allowed. FIR No. 86 dated 11.07.2020, registered under Sections 418, 409 and 420 IPC at Police Station Mukerian, District Hoshiarpur, and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom, including the final report/charge-sheet and proceedings under Sections 409, 418 and 403 IPC, are hereby quashed qua the petitioner.

Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.