The High Court
Case Details
1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(Cr) No. 363 of 2023 Raj Kumar Shrivastava .. …Petitioner 1.The State of Jharkhand 2. Pallavi Verma Versus ..... …Respondents CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI For the Petitioner : Mr. Saurabh Shekhar, Advocate
Legal Reasoning
Mr. Anurag Kumar, Advocate For the State : Mr. Deepankar Roy, Advocate For the Resp. No.2 : Mr. Pratyush Lala, Advocate ------ 04/ Dated:-06.11.2023 Heard Mr. Saurabh Shekhar, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Deepankar Roy, learned counsel for the respondent- State and Mr. Pratyush Lala, learned counsel for the respondent no.2. 2. This petition has been filed for quashing the entire criminal proceeding arising out of Complaint Case No. 9809 of 2022 including order taking cognizance dated 28.03.2023, pending in the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dhanbad. 3. Complaint case was filed against the petitioner, along with two other co-accused persons, who are husband and father-in- law of the petitioner, who has alleged herself to be the aggrieved lady. The petitioner at the relevant point of time, was posted as Branch Manager, Bank of India, Saraidhela Branch, at the time of occurrence of the incident narrated in the complaint petition. He was the person, who had sanctioned loan amount in favour of the present complainant, i.e, respondent no.2. It was further alleged that the co-accused persons, particularly, the husband and father-in-law, took loan of Rs. 10,50,000/- in the name of the complainant. Thereafter they took the complainant in confidence and obtained her signatures on 5-6 2 blank cheques, saying that she would not have to go to the bank with regard to the loan. After taking the loan amount, the entire amount was deposited in the account of the husband. The husband and father-in-law, along with the petitioner, who happens to be the Branch Manager of Bank of India, Harikunj, Saraidhela, got the amount transferred in the account of the company named Medivision Enterprises, and the amount was used for their personal use. It has further been alleged that the husband. and father-in-law pressurized the petitioner to release the amount to satisfy the loan, and for which they have applied all tactics and resorted to the physical and mental torture. 4. Mr. Saurabh Shekhar, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioner at the relevant time was posted as Branch Manager, Bank of India, Saraidhela Branch. He submits that so far as accused nos. 1 and 2 are concerned, they are husband and father-in-law of respondent no.2. He submits that in the present case allegations are made that a sum of Rs. 10,50,000/- was sanctioned by this petitioner on the application of respondent no.2 in connivance with her husband and father-in-law. He submits that the petitioner has no role in the present case. He submits that looking into all the documents the said loan was sanctioned. He submits that apart from that there is nothing against this petitioner. He further submits that earlier the respondent no.2 lodged an F.I.R. being Saraidhela P.S. Case No. 106 of 2022 on 01.06.2022 under sections 498A, 506 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code against the husband and father-in-law and other family members. He further submits that present complaint case has been filed on 05.09. 2022. He submits for family dispute unnecessarily 3 this petitioner has been implicated in this case who has already retired on 30.04.2021. 5. Learned counsel for the respondent no.2 submits that the petitioner has played role and sanctioned Rs. 10,50,000/- in the name of respondent no.2 in connivance with accused nos. 1 and 2. He submits that case is made out against the petitioner and learned court has rightly taken cognizance. He refers to Annexure-A to the counter-affidavit. 6. Learned counsel for the respondent-State submits that looking into complaint petition, solemn affirmation and enquiry witnesses, the learned court has taken cognizance. 7. In view of above submissions of the learned counsel for the parties the court has gone through the materials on record including the contents of complaint petition as well as cognizance order. The petitioner has been made accused in the capacity of Branch Manager of Bank of India, Saraidhela including the accused nos.1 and 2 who are the husband and father-in-law of the respondent no.2 respectively. It appears that respondent no.2 earlier lodged Saraidhela P.S. Case No. 106 of 2022 dated 01.06.2022 against the accused nos. 1 and 2 and subsequently present complaint case has been filed on 05.09.2022 alleging therein that loan was sanctioned in the name of respondent no.2 with connivance with accused nos. 1 and 2 who are husband and father-in-law and further allegations are that the petitioner has sanctioned the loan in question. 8. Coming to the solemn affirmation in para 3 it transpires that respondent no. 2 has only taken the name of the accused nos. 1 and 2 and the role played in obtaining the loan in 4 the name of respondent no.2. The petitioner was branch manager at that time in Bank of India, Saraidhela and he has only sanctioned the loan looking into the relevant documents. The husband and wife decided to run path lab and for that loan in question was obtained by them. The respondent no.2 has admitted in solemn affirmation that on assurance of her husband she has signed the cheque etc. and at that time the petitioner was Branch Manager. It appears that complainant case has been maliciously filed against the petitioner. 9. In view of above facts, reasons and analysis, the entire criminal proceeding arising out of Complaint Case No. 9809 of 2022 including order taking cognizance dated 28.03.2023, pending in the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dhanbad, so far this petitioner is concerned, is quashed. 10. It is made clear that this Court has not interfered with order taking cognizance and complaint petition so far accused nos. 1 and 2 are concerned and the learned court shall proceed in accordance with law. 11. This petition stands allowed and disposed of. The
Decision
interim order is vacated. Pending I.A, if any, stands disposed of Satyarthi/- (Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.)