Judicature For Rajasthan Bench High Court · 2025

Babu Lal Meena S/o Shri Panchu Ram Meena, R/o House No. 175/64, Sector 17, Pratap Nagar, Kumbha Marg, Jaipur City (East), Rajasthan And At Dhani Kaythawali Amai, Kotputli, Jaipur Rural, Rajasthan. Connected With ----Respondents S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 1765/2023 Hemant Kumar Meena S/o Shri Kirodi Lal Meena, State Bank Of India, Regional Office, Zonal Office-2, Near Sahani Hospital, 255, N.e.b., Subhash Nagar, Alwar (Raj). Satish Kumar, S/o Shri Banwari Lal Sharma, State Bank Of India, Regional Office, Zonal Office-2, Near Sahani Hospital, 255, N.e.b., Subhash Nagar, Alwar (Raj). ----Petitioners Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through Public Prosecutor. Babu Lal Meena S/o Shri Panchu Ram Meena, R/o House No. 175/64, Sector 17, Pratap Nagar, Kumbha Marg, Jaipur City (East), Rajasthan And At Dhani Kaythawali Amai, Kotputli, Jaipur Rural, Rajasthan. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. A. K. Sharma, Senior Advocate Mr. Suruchi Kasliwal Multani Mr. Vikram Singh For Respondent(s) : Mr. M. S. Shekhawat, PP Mr. Babu Lal Meena, present in person [2025:RJ-JP:28006] (2 of 7) [CRLMP-1764/2023] HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SAMEER JAIN Judgment 25/07/2025

1. The present petitions are filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. seeking directions for quashing of FIR No. 13/2023 dated

05.01.2023 lodged in the Police Station NEB Alwar for the offence under Section 166A, 188 and 120B of IPC and Section 3(2)(va) of the SC/ST Act.

2. Learned Senior counsel- Mr. A. K. Sharma, representing the petitioners has submitted that present FIR is lodged by respondent No. 2/complainant against the erstwhile officers of the State Bank of India (SBI). It is further submitted that complainant is indulged in a long-standing pattern of filing frivolous, vexatious, and malicious litigation (both civil and criminal) against various officers of SBI and the lodging of impugned FIR is another instance of abuse of criminal process by the respondent No. 2.

3. Further, it is submitted that present matter is purely civil in nature and related to service dispute which is subjudice before the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court. Furthermore, it is submitted that dispute pertains to the non-release of annual increments qua the respondent No. 2 pending from the time his tenure of service with the Bank.

4. Additionally, it is submitted that present FIR is a classic example of forum shopping and misuse of legal process. It is further submitted that respondent No. 2 is a compulsive litigant and approximately 20 criminal complaints/FIRs are lodged against approx. 50 different officers of the Bank (Annexure-5). [2025:RJ-JP:28006] (3 of 7) [CRLMP-1764/2023]

5. Further, it is submitted that under the provisions of Rajasthan Vexatious Litigation (Prevention) Act, 2015, concerned Bank has filed a petition titled State Bank of India & Anr. Vs. Babu Lal Meena ; DBCWP No. 7169/2016, before the Division Bench of this Court, wherein an interim order was passed vide order dated 26.09.2016, which was confirmed or made absolute vide order dated 07.11.2016 (Annexure-7).

6. It is next submitted that despite being apprised of the stay orders, in a flagrant disregard of judicial discipline, impugned FIR No. 13/2023 registered at P.S. NEB Alwar and 19/2023 registered at P.S. Ashok Nagar Jaipur, was lodged by the respondent No.2, which is clear contravention of the binding stay orders. However, concerned Court has passed an order staying the proceedings in furtherance to the said FIRs vide order dated

28.03.2023 (Annexure- A).

7. Lastly, it is submitted that respondent No.2 has already filed three petitions before the High Court, for restoration of pay, release of annual increments, payment of full pension and reinstatement in service, therefore, parallel criminal proceedings cannot be initiated.

8. Per contra, respondent No. 2, present in person, has submitted that present petitions are not maintainable for the reason that he belongs to SC/ST Community and petitioners are harassing him. It is further submitted that despite the categorical orders passed by a quasi judicial authority way back in the year 2010, the same were not complied with by the petitioners in letter and spirit. Further, the said orders have attained finality, thus criminal proceedings can be initiated parallel to each other. [2025:RJ-JP:28006] (4 of 7) [CRLMP-1764/2023]

9. It is further submitted that when concerned Bank has introduced an Amnesty Scheme by way of Circular, he has approached the competent authorities with intention to withdraw the petitions so that in light of the said Scheme, settlement can be made, however, on account of vindictive attitude of the officers, same was not considered, prompting lodging of present FIR for non-compliance of the order passed by quasi -judicial authorities.

10. Further, it is submitted that criminal and civil proceedings can run simultaneously. In support of the said contention reliance is placed upon the dictum enunciated in Kathyayini Vs. Sri Sidharth P.S. Reddy reported in 2025 INSC

11. Furthermore, it is submitted that petitioners have not approached this Court with clean hands as they have taken recourse to the Division Bench and have not disclosed the petitioner qua filing of present quashing petition. In support of the said contention reliance is placed upon the dictum enunciated in Ambalal Parihar Vs. State of Raj. & Ors.: Criminal Appeal No. 3233/2023 and Pradeep Nirankarnath Sharma Vs. State of Gujarat & Ors.: SLP No. 3154/2024.

12. Additionally, it is submitted that while exercising powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., Courts should not interfere in the matter when the same requires investigation and involves disputed question of facts and same are to be dealt and considered by the learned trial Court.

13. Having heard and considered the arguments advanced by respective parties, scanned the material available on record [2025:RJ-JP:28006] (5 of 7) [CRLMP-1764/2023] and considered the judgments cited at the Bar, this Court has made the following observations:-

13.1 That contents of the FIR reflects that the petitioners are the employees of the SBI Bank, who were carrying out their official duties.

13.2 That the respondent No. 2/complainant was an erstwhile employee of the Bank who was given compulsory retirement on account of his misconduct.

13.3 That the respondent No. 2 is observed to be a compulsive litigant as he has lodged approximately 20 FIRs against the petitioners which are pending before the concerned Court.

13.4 That allegations leveled in the FIR, are already subject matter of dispute before this Court as petitions qua restoration of pay, release of annual increments, payment of full pension and reinstatement in service along with consequential benefits are pending. Details of petitions in summary form, are reproduced as under:- S. No. Title & Case No. Prayer List of Civil Cases

1. No. SBCWP 6566/2015 titled Babu Lal Meena Vs State Bank of India Implement the order dated 28.07.2010 an extent the benefit of restoration as well as due annual grade increments to the Petitioners @ 18% p.a. from the date of realization To set aside the order dated 27.02.2013 passed by the disciplinary authority whereby the Petitioner has been imposed the penalty of reduction of basic pay by two stages with cumulative effect To quash and set aside the order dated 10.06.2013 passed by the appellate authority whereby the appeal dated 04.05.2013 preferred by the Petitioner [2025:RJ-JP:28006] (6 of 7) [CRLMP-1764/2023] against the order dated 27.02.2013 has dismissed To quash and set aside the order dated 06.12.2014 and order 08.04.2015 whereby Petitioner has been denied the arrears due to him and have been wrongly implicated of the misconduct of willful absence from duly for 898 days and for incorrect computation of the service benefits due to the Petitioner To direct the respondents bank to make the payment of the Petitioners of all the arrears of restoration of basic pay as well as annual grade increments with interest of 18% per annum from the date of realization Any other order which this Hon'ble court deems just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case Cost of the petition be awarded in favour of the Petitioner Direct the Respondents to pay the 100% amount of pension, computation of pension, gratuity and other services and retiral benefits to the Petitioner which is due from the date of his superannuation along with the interest of 18% p.a. with all consequential benefits treating the petitioner retired on completion of 33 years of continuous service. Order of compulsory retirement dated 31.03.2015 (Annx-11, Pg 309-319) and the Order dated 30.09.2015 (Annx-17, Pg 547) passed by the Appellate Authority may kindly be quashed & set- aside and Respondents may kindly be directed to reinstate Petitioner in service with all consequential benefits treating him to continue in service. Cost of litigation awarded to the Petitioner.

3. SBCWP No. 2022/2016 titled Babu Lal Meena Vs State Bank of India No. SBCWP titled Babu Lal Meena Vs State Bank of India

13.5 That contents of the FIR reflects that dispute is purely civil in nature, thus relying upon the judgment passed in Rikhab Birani & Anr. Vs. State of UP & Anr.: SLP (Criminal) No. [2025:RJ-JP:28006] (7 of 7) [CRLMP-1764/2023] 8592/2024, Naresh Kumar and Anr. Vs. State of Karnataka and Anr., reported in 2024 INSC 196, Randheer Singh vs. State of U.P. nad Ors., reported in (2021) 14 SCC 626, Usha Chakraborty and Anr. vs. State of West Bengal and Anr.; 2023 SCC OnLine SC 90 and Kapil Agarwal & Ors. v. Sanjay Sharma & Ors., reported in (2021) 5 SCC 524, this Court is inclined to quash the present FIR.

14. Taking note of the aforementioned, FIR No. 13/2023 registered at Police Station NEB, Alwar with all consequential proceedings, is hereby quashed and set aside.

15. Accordingly, the instant petitions are allowed. Pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of. Pooja /203-204 (SAMEER JAIN),J