Om Prakash v. Munni Kumari

For the State : Mr. Nasim Yahya, A.P.P. For the Opposite Party No. 2 : Mr. Arun Kumar Pandey, Adv. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. ANJANA PRAKASH ORAL ORDER

24-04-2012 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. The petitioner seeks quashing of the order dated

13.8.2009 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Ara, in Complaint Case No. 252 of 2008 by which it has taken cognizance under Sections 323, 341 and 354 of the Indian Penal Code. The case of the Complainant is that she had applied for loan in the “Pradhan Mantri Rozgar Yojana” on 28.2.2007 through the Manager of State Bank of India, Pakri Ara Branch. When she went to enquire about the position of loan disbursement on 15.2.2008, the petitioner allegedly told her to wait for sometime. A little later, she was informed by somebody else that 2 Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.46168 of 2009 (3) dt.24-04-2012 she was required to go to an adjoining Cabin where she went along with the petitioner for putting certain signatures. However, the petitioner closed the door and started to misbehave with her and also assaulted her. When she started screaming, everyone gathered and broke open the door and she was saved. The petitioner also allegedly threatened her. During enquiry under Section 202 of the Indian Penal Code three witnesses were examined in the matter but the Court was not satisfied with the quality of evidence given in support of the Complaint and, therefore, called for a report from the Regional Manager, State Bank of India, Patna, in its regard. The Regional Manager got the matter enquired and communicated to the Court concerned that the allegations contained in the Complaint were completely false and fictitious. It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that he was the Branch Manager of the Bank and in fact, the Complainant had applied for loan which had been sanctioned on

28.2.2007 but the Complainant against the norms of Reserve Bank of India, was demanding that the loan amount be disbursed in cash whereas it could have been only disbursed through a Banker’s Cheque to the Supplier of the Photocopy machine. On the date of occurrence, the Complainant came to the petitioner once again for 3 Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.46168 of 2009 (3) dt.24-04-2012 disbursal of loan through cash but when he refused, he was threatened with dire consequence. It is also submitted that the father of the Complainant was supplying Generator current to the Bank and there were some differences between him and the Bank on account of which a Writ was also filed before this Court by the father of the Complainant. In the said Writ application, the Bank had entered appearance and brought to the notice of this Court that the father of the Complainant was the litigating type of person and had been causing a lot of problem for the Bank Officials on some pretext or the other.

It has been submitted that in this background, the present Complaint is completely false and malicious. On the other hand, the counsel for the Complainant submits that it is because the petitioner misbehaved with her that the present Complaint was filed, therefore, he should be proceeded against. She was also allegedly injured in the transaction. Having gone through the Complaint, I am inclined to hold that the facts stated in the Complaint appear to be exaggerated and unnatural. It does not stand to reason that a Bank Manager in full view of 40-50 persons present there (as admitted by the Complainant) would take courage to commit such an act within the Bank premises staking the prospects of his career. Also certain allegations such as that the petitioner took out a pistol and 4 Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.46168 of 2009 (3) dt.24-04-2012 threatened everyone who had gathered in support of Complainant and yet no Complaint was filed by anyone else makes the Complaint even more suspicious.