AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Date : 25-08-2026 Heard the parties.
The present quashing petition has been preferred to quash the order dated 26.02.2018 passed in Complaint Case No. 1531C/2015, where learned CJM, Nalanda at Biharsharif has issued summon against the petitioner for the offence punishable under Sections 420 and 467 of the IPC without any cognizance order.
Opposite Party No. 2, fails to join the present proceedings.
The complaint case, in brief, speaks that Avinash Kumar and Dharmvir Singh, stated to be representatives of the Central Bank of India, Nalanda College Branch, visited the residence of the complainant and informed him that his mother, Savitri Devi stood as a guarantor for a loan availed by Basant Prasad under C.C. Account No. 1884210844. The Complainant asserted that his mother was illiterate and said Basant Prasad was neither known to him nor related otherwise and moreover his mother had already expired. He further alleged that despite issuance of a legal notice to the Branch Manager seeking relevant loan documents, the Bank merely furnished a reply without supplying the requested documents. Thereafter, on 28.11.2015, upon meeting the Branch Manager, he was allegedly informed that his mother was a guarantor and that the entire loan amount would be realized from him and his mother. Alleging that the accused persons were attempting to recover the loan through wrongful and unlawful means, the complainant instituted the present complaint case against accused persons including petitioner in his official capacity.
On the basis of allegations as raised through averments as set out in complaint petition and upon examination of complainant on SA and also the inquiry witnesses, the learned CJM, Nalanda took cognizance against petitioner namely Branch Manager, Central Bank of India, Nalanda College branch, Garhper, Biharsharif and also against co-accused Basant Prasad, Proprietor, Vidya Jewellers for the offence punishable u/S 420 and 267/34 of the IPC vide order dated 03.05.2017.
It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the loan in issue was sanctioned in year 2006, where the mother of this complainant was one of the guarantor. It is submitted that said loan account was declared NPA in year 2012 and, thereafter the process of recovery was initiated, whereafter matter came into the knowledge of the complainant. She visited the concerned branch of the bank, where she made an inquiry with this petitioner regarding all the previous progress and details of the loan account and when complainant exceeded in her protest during office hours, she was ousted from the office of the bank. It is submitted that out of said oblique motive the petitioner being branch manager was implicated with the present crime in question, otherwise not even remotely connected. It is submitted that petitioner was neither posted in bank in year 2006, nor in the year 2012, when the loan account was declared NPA. It is submitted that with allegation as raised through FIR, no criminal case appears made out against petitioner for the offences punishable under Sections 420 and 467/34 of the IPC. It is submitted that out of personal vengeance and settle the loan account to create a legal pressure, this petitioner being branch manager was implicated and, therefore, cognizance order dated 12.01.2016 and summoning order dated 03.05.2017 is liable to be quashed/set aside. While travelling over the argument learned counsel relied upon the legal report of Hon’ble Supreme Court as available through State of Haryana and Others Vs. Bhajan Lal and Others, [1992 Supp (1) Supreme Court Cases 335].
It would be apposite to reproduce paragraph no. 102 of the Bhajan Lal Case (supra) which reads as under:
“102.In the backdrop of the interpretation of the various relevant provisions of the Code under Chapter XIV and of the principles of law enunciated by this Court in a series of decisions relating to the exercise of the extraordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code which we have extracted and reproduced above, we give the following categories of cases by way of illustration wherein such power could be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently channelised and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised.
(1)Where the allegations made in the first information report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused.
(2)Where the allegations in the first informant report and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code.
(3)Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of nay offence and make out a case against the accused.
(4)Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code.
(5)Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent persons can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused.
(6)Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party.
(7)Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge.”
In view of aforesaid factual and legal discussions and by taking note of fact as petitioner was not posted in the bank at the time of sanctioning loan or when the loan account was declared NPA, however he was posted when the proceeding for the recovery was initiated against mother of the complainant who was guarantor of the loan account, it appears that the present criminal complaint was filed to settle the personal vengeance out of ulterior and oblique motive. Accordingly, by taking note of guidelines as mentioned in Bhajan Lal Case (supra), impugned order of cognizance dated 26.02.2018 with all its consequential proceedings, qua, petitioner arising thereof as passed in Complaint Case No. 1531C/2015, pending before learned CJM, Nalanda at Biharsharif is hereby quashed and set aside.
Hence, this application stands allowed.
TCR (Trial Court Records), if any, be returned to the learned Trial Court alongwith the copy of this judgment.
Footnotes
- 1.AFR/NAFR NAFR CAV DATE NA Uploading Date 25.08.2026 Transmission Date 25.08.2026