UCO BANK & Oths. vs STATE OF GUJARAT & Anr.

By means of filing this Misc. Criminal Application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the applicants-original accused have prayed for quashment of FIR No. 3 of 2010, filed against them in Raopura Police Station, pursuant to an order for getting registration of the complaint dated 2nd January, 2010 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Vadodara.

Brief facts of the case are that on 22nd December, 2009, when a junior advocate of the complainant tendered four bundles of currency notes comprising Rs. 500/- which were withdrawn from Bank of Baroda, for depositing in the account of the complainant, it is alleged that the employee of the UCO Bank inserted one fake currency note in the said bundle. The complainant when informed about the fake currency note, he came rushing at the Branch and took possession of the note from Assistant Manager, who put trust over him on account of business relations with the Bank. The complainant thereafter lodged a complaint before the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Vadodara on 31st December, 2009, who directed the Police on 2nd January, 2010 to register a complaint against accused under Section 154 of the Code. Accordingly, a complaint/FIR came to be lodged against the present applicants under Sections 166, 167, 168, 192, 193, 194, 240, 242, 243, 247, 248, 252, 498-B[479-B] and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code.

This Court [Coram: Mr. Justice Akil Kureshi] vide Oral Order dated 17th February, 2010 issued rule and granted ad interim relief in terms of para 13[3] of the memo. Thereafter, vide Order dated 9th July, 2014, this Court [Coram: Mr. Justice R.D. Kothari] modified the interim relief granted earlier and directed Raopura Police Station, Baroda to investigate C.R.No. I-3 of 2010, however, no coercive steps shall be taken qua the present applicants. Thereafter, from time to time, this matter stood adjourned for want of report from the investigating agency.

Today, learned APP Shri KP Raval appearing for and on behalf of the respondent-State has submitted that the Police has filed "A" Summary report before the trial Court in connection with offence alleged against the applicants. According to him, the said "A" Summary has been guided by Master Circular : 2012-2013 issued by the Reserve Bank of India dated 1st July, 2013 which pertains to detention and impounding of counterfeit notes. In Para-5, which deals with "Detention of Counterfeit Notes-Reporting to Police and other bodies", it is specifically stated that, "for cases of detention of counterfeit notes of 5 or more pieces, in a single transaction, the counterfeit notes should be forwarded to the Nodal Bank Officer to the local police authorities or the Nodal Police Station for investigation by filing FIR".

Shri KP Raval has produced on record a communication dated 10th July, 2016 received by him from Police Inspector, Raopura Police Station, Vadodara City and a copy of Reserve Bank of India communication dated 1st July, 2013 enclosing therewith Master Circular DCM [FNVD] No. G- 5/16.01.05/2012-2013 dated July 2, 2012 consolidating instructions issued till June 30, 2012 relating to detention and impounding of counterfeit notes. These documents are ordered to be taken on record.

Earlier it was submitted by learned APP Mr. KP Raval that as per Notification issued by Reserve Bank of India, Department of Currency Management, Master Circular 2012-13, no offence needs to be registered. The same was supported by learned advocate Mr. MD Rana appearing on behalf of the applicants.

6.1 While going through the police report of Raopura Police Station, it appears that no correct interpretation was made and this report is in consonance to what is mentioned in the notification issued by Reserve Bank of India, Department of Currency Management, as stated above, and therefore, this matter was placed for clarification from the respective parties. Thereafter, it was clarified by learned APP Mr. KP Raval appearing on behalf of the respondent no.1 and learned advocate Mr. MD Rana appearing on behalf of the applicants that as such on interpretation made by the Police Inspector, Raopura Police Station, under his report dated 10th July, 2016, was not correct and that no offence could be registered in a case of finding of fake currency notes 5(five) in numbers or less. It is submitted that in the report no fruitful finding was arrived during the investigation that who is real accused or culprit and who has provided a fake currency amounting Rs. 500/- and there is no chance to find out in near future also. That, Assistant Commissioner through the Police Commissioner ''B'' Division, Vadodara City, Vadodara submitted ''A'' Summary report before the court of learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, 2nd Court, Vadodara on 11th July, 2015.

In case of such a report being sent under Section 169 CrPC ie., where there is no sufficiency of evidence to justify forwarding of a case to a Magistrate, learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, 2nd Court at Vadodara shall be the competent authority to pass necessary order. Upon receiving final report, the following four courses are open to the Magistrate and he may adopt any one of them, as the facts and circumstances of the case may require. (i) He may agree with conclusions arrived at by the police, accept the report and drop the proceedings. But, before so doing, he shall give an opportunity of hearing to the complainant; or

(ii) He may take cognizance under Section 190(1)(b) and issue process straightway to the accused without being bound by the conclusions of the investigating agency where he is satisfied that upon the facts discovered or unearthed by the police, there is sufficient ground to proceed;or

(iii) He may order further investigation, if he is satisfied that the investigation was made in a perfunctory manner; or

(iv) He may, without issuing process or dropping the proceedings decide to take cognizance under Section 190(1)(a) upon the original complaint or protest petition treating the same as complaint and proceed to act under Sections 200 and 202 of the Criminal Procedure Code and thereafter decide whether complaint should be dismissed or process should be issued.

In case of Abhinandan Jha v. Dinesh Misra, reported in AIR 1968 SC 117, the question arose whether a Magistrate to whom report under Section 173(2) had been submitted to the effect that no case had been made out against the accused, could direct the police to file a charge sheet, on his disagreeing with the report submitted by the police. The Apex Court held that the Magistrate has no jurisdiction to direct the police to submit a chargesheet, but it is open to the Magistrate to agree or disagree with the police report. If he agrees with the report that there is no case made out for issuing process to the accused, then he may accept the report and close the proceedings. But, if he comes to the conclusion that further investigation is necessary, then he may make an order to that effect under Section 156(3), and if ultimately, the Magistrate is of the opinion that the facts set out in the police report constitute an offence, he can take cognizance of the offence, notwithstanding the contrary opinion of the police expressed in the report. However, in the said decision a typing error occurred inasmuch as the reference to Section 190(1)(c) was a mistake for Section 190(1)(b), which was later on, pointed in H.S. Bains case (AIR 1980 SC 1883).

The Police Manual and the Gujarat Criminal Manual contemplates different types of summaries. The Summary class- A is contemplated, where the complaint is true, but, undetected, or where there is no clue whatsoever about the culprits or the property or where the accused is known but there is no evidence to justify his being sent up to the Magistrate for trial.

In view of the aforesaid circumstances and reasons, this application is disposed of in accordance with law with a direction to the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Cass, 2nd Court, Vadodara to decide ''A'' Summary submitted by the Investigating Agency on 11th July, 2015.

This Court has not expressed any opinion, on the issue involved in the application. Learned Judge below will be free to decide the issue on its own merits.

Rule nisi is made absolute to the aforestated extent. No Costs.