Gurunanakpura Tilak Nagar Jaipur v. State Of Rajasthan, Through P.p

Judgment

2. Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through P.p. New Bank Of India Punjab National Bank, Through Manager, Branch Johari Bazar Jaipur.

3. Narendra Kumar Jain (Bhandari), Resident Of 2362 Dusra Choraha Moti Singh Bhomiya Ka Rasta, Johari Bazar, Jaipur. Second Address- Arihant Medical Ke Samne Baisi Gaddi Gulab Bag Purniya Bihar. Connected With ----Respondents S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 7150/2022

Surendra Kumar Jain Son Of Late Shri Tej Bahadur Singh, Aged About 72 Years, Resident Of House No. B 290 Flat Number 201 Gurunanakpura Tilak Nagar Jaipur. ----Petitioner

2. Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through P.p. New Bank Of India (Punjab National Bank), Through Manager, Branch Johari Bazar Jaipur.

3. Narendra Kumar Jain (Bhandari), Resident Of 2362 Dusra Choraha Moti Singh Bhomiya Ka Rasta, Johari Bazar , Jaipur. Second Address- Arihant Medical Ke Samne Baisi Gaddi Gulab Bag Purniya Bihar. ----Respondents S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 7205/2022 Surendra Kumar Jain Son Of Late Shri Tej Bahadur Singh, Aged About 72 Years, Resident Of House No. B 290 Flat Number 201 Gurunanakpura Tilak Nagar Jaipur. Versus ----Petitioner [2025:RJ-JP:28298] (2 of 5) [CRLMP-7204/2022]

2. State Of Rajasthan, Through P.p. Vishwas @ Risal Singh, S.i./i.o Police Station Manak Chowk Jaipur Metropolitan, Jaipur.

3. Chenaram, S.h.o. Police Station Manak Chowk Jaipur Metropolitan.

4. New Bank Of India Punjab National Bank, Through Manager , Branch Johari Bazar Jaipur.

5. Narendra Kumar Jain (Bhandari), Resident Of 2362 Dusra Choraha Moti Singh Bhomiya Ka Rasta, Johari Bazar , Jaipur. Second Address- Arihant Medical Ke Samne Baisi Gaddi Gulab Bag Purniya Bihar. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. S.K. Jain (present in person) For Respondent(s) : Ms. Lata Sarda, Adv. Through V.C. for PNB and Mr. Mohammad Bilal Khan, Adv. Mr. Raunak, Singhvi, Adv. Mr. Mukesh Dudi, Adv. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAVEER BHATNAGAR 28/07/2025 Order

1. The matters comes upon an application for seeking early hearing, the same is allowed. The parties are ready to argue the case today itself.

3. Heard. The petitioner has challenged the impugned order dated

15.01.2020 and the subsequent order dated 27.07.2022 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge No.5, Jaipur Metropolitan, whereby the Appellate Court dismissed the petitioner’s revision petition filed against the order dated 15.01.2020 passed by the [2025:RJ-JP:28298] (3 of 5) [CRLMP-7204/2022] learned trial Court rejecting the protest petition filed by the petitioner and thereby accepting the final negative report.

4. The petitioner is present in person before the Court. It is contended by the petitioner that prima facie offence is made out against the Bank officials and respondent No.3 Narendra Kumar Jain. The learned trial Court as well as the Revisional Court did not consider the matter in right perspective and dismissed the petition without assigning any cogent reasons and thereby accepted the final negative report. It is further contended that the petitioner’s father died in the year 2010 and thereafter, the Bank is not disclosing the name in which the FDR’s were renewed from time to time. It is also contended that the petitioner’s father opened a locker in the New Bank of India and that locker has also not been allowed to be operated by the petitioner. It is also contended that the petitioner’s father never opened his locker account in Punjab National Bank nor any amount was deposited for FDR’s in the Punjab National Bank. The Court below did not consider the grounds raised by the petitioner in the protest petition and in a cursory manner dismissed the petitioner’s protest petition and accepted the final negative report.

5. Learned counsel Ms. Lata Sarda, Adv. appears through video conferencing on behalf of Punjab National Bank and stated that the petitioner’s father opened a locker in the New Bank India which was later on merged in Punjab National Bank. The petitioner has been asked to furnish the succession certificate and instead of filing the same, the petitioner has dragged the Officials of the Bank by filing multiple FIRs. The learned trial Court as well as the Revisional Court after going through the entire factual matrix [2025:RJ-JP:28298] (4 of 5) [CRLMP-7204/2022] found the dispute to be of a civil nature as prima facie no offence is made out against the respondents, therefore, the petitioner’s petition may be dismissed.

6. Learned counsel appears on behalf of respondent No.3 justifies the order passed by the learned trial Court as well as the Revisional Court.

8. Perused the material available on record. The trial court after perusing the conclusion recorded by the Investigating Officer and after hearing the petitioner, accepted the final negative report vide impugned order dated 15.01.2020 and in doing so the learned trial Court referred to the judgment of this Court passed in S.B. Miscellaneous Petition No.2372/2010 decided on 17.08.2011, whereby, the Co-ordinate Bench gives a specific finding that whatever the petitioner seeks by way of criminal proceedings can be better availed by filing appropriate proceedings of Succession and the Court also opined that prima facie no offence is made out against any person which can justify the initiation of criminal proceedings. The trial Court after considering the entire material placed on record reached to the conclusion that the petitioner has wrongly invoked the criminal jurisdiction as no case is made out for initiating proceedings against the respondents.

9. The Learned Revisional Court concurred with the findings arrived at by the trial Court and held that the contentions of the complaint submitted by the petitioner’s father do no disclose any offence against the respondent’s Bank, the FDR’s which continued in the name of the petitioner’s father are still alive and the [2025:RJ-JP:28298] (5 of 5) [CRLMP-7204/2022] petitioner may apply for releasing the same upon furnishing the succession certificate.

10. Upshot to the above discussion, this Court is of the view that no case is made out against the respondents and the learned trial Court as well as Revisional Court have rightly dismissed the petitioner’s plea.

11. Accordingly, these petitions filed by the petitioner are hereby dismissed. Ashwani Kr Srivastava /-22-24 (PRAVEER BHATNAGAR),J