ABHISHEK SINGH Vs. AJAY KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Leave Granted.

(2.) The appellant, Abhishek Singh, is the complainant and has approached this Court aggrieved by the judgment and order dtd. 12/11/2024, passed by the High Court of Judicature at Patna in Criminal Miscellaneous No.67884 of 2023, whereby the respondents' application under Sec. 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973[Cr.P.C.] was allowed and the First Information Report dtd. 7/9/2023 filed by him under Ss. 420, 406 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860[IPC], being Mithanpura P.S. Case No.393 of 2023, was quashed.

(3.) The brief facts that gave rise to this appeal, as set out by the Courts below, are that the appellant, being a businessman by vocation, was in need of certain funds which he secured by way of a loan from the Bank of India, Motijhil Branch. Having pledged 254 grams of 22 carat gold ornaments by way of security, a loan of Rs. 7,70,000 was made in his favour, on 22/7/2020. The dispute arises when it comes to the repayment of this loan. According to the appellant, upon receipt of notice dtd. 7/10/2022 from the bank asking him to pay a sum of Rs. 8,01,383.59, which included interest, he repaid the same as on 31/3/2023. Unbeknownst to him, the bank conducted a revaluation of the gold pledged by him and, to that end, deducted Rs. 1500 towards fees. His applications for returning the pledged gold fell on deaf years. On the other hand, according to the bank, he did not pay the loan, because of which the gold became an asset of the bank. In order to realise the money involved in the transaction, the said gold was revalued and found to be counterfeit when it was allegedly reported by a valuer, different from the one who had originally valued the appellant's gold when the loan was made, that the material pledged was not gold in actuality but gold plated on top of other metals. One FIR was registered under Sec. 420 and 379 IPC against the appellant on 22/5/2023. Another FIR, subject matter of this appeal, was registered subsequently after an application was made by the appellant to the competent authority under Sec. 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. Respondent No.1, the Accused therein, was the Branch and Credit Manager at the time of the revaluation of the appellant's gold.