JAGPAUL KAUR Vs. INDERJEET SARUP

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners who are sister and brother respectivelyof the respondent have filed the present petition under Section 482 of the Codeof Criminal Procedure for quashing the proceedings of 8 criminal cases detailedin Annexure 19 filed along with this petition against them at the behest of therespondent. Daring the course of arugments, it has been agreed that it may be.quite difficult to hear the arguments in respect of all the 8 criminal cases andtherefore, for the time being the arguments have been confined to the firstcomplaint filed by the respondent against the petitioners under Sections 403/406etc. read with Section 120B IPC.

(2.) I have heard arguments advanced by learned Counsel for the partiesin respect of this complaint. This complaint is from pages 25 to 32 of the file.The main grievance in this complaint is that respondent was having a jointlocker No. 552 along with both the petitioners in the State Bank of India,Chandni Chowk, Delhi. Petitioner No. 3 who is the Manager of the aforesaidbank is accused No. 3 in the complaint. It is then alleged in this complaint thatthe respondent entertained a reasonable apprehension about foul play in theoperation of the locker at the bands of the petitioners and therefore vide letterdated 25.7.86 informed the bank not to allow the operation of the locker bypetitioners 1 and 2. An entry in this respect was made in the records of thebank. It may also be mentioned that husband of the respondent was beingharassed by the petitioners by making false and frivolous complaints against himas well as her. Therefore, the husband of the complainant also made acomplaint about the un-known sources of income of her sister petitioner no. 1who was a Govt. servant. There was an enquiry by the Anti corruptiondepartment. In spite of a letter having been written by the respondent topetitioner No. 3, he permitted the surrender of the locker by petitioners 1 and 2in connivance with them thereby depriving the respondent from her valuableslying in that locker. The value of the contents of the locker is stated to be aboutRs. 20.000.00. Thus the petitioners were charged with criminal conspiracy ofoffences punishable under various Sections of the IPC.

(3.) Learned Counsel for the petitioners submitted that the locker according to the rules of the bank could be operated by either of the joint holders.She has specifically drawn my attention to a copy of the bank's circular at page484 of the file. Clause (i) says that where the locker is hired by more than oneperson and operable by either of them, the key of such a locker can besurrendered either in person or bypost by any one of the hirers. She has furthersubmitted that since the contents of the locker bad been checked by the anticorruption Inspector on the complaint of the husband of the respondent, thepetitioners were well within their rights to surrender the locker because the anticorruption inspector told the bank that they bad no objection to the surrenderof the locker. As against this learned Counsel for the respondent has drawnmy attention to the agreement of hiring of the locker by the parties from pages469 to 471 of the file. My attention has been specifically drawn to clause (2)of the agreement. It says that ordinarily access to the locker during the jointlives of the hirers will be by the hirers or any one or more of them until thebank receives a notice to the contrary from either/any one of them in whichevent access shall be bad by the hirers or the survivors of them jointly. Basinghis argument on the aforesaid clause, learned Counsel for the respondent arguedthat when respondent bad intimated petitions No. 3 i.e. the Manager of thebank not to allow the operation of the locker by the petitioners and an entryin this respect had been made in the records of the bank, it was not permissibleto the Manager to allow the petitioners surrender of the locker and therebyfacilitate the misappropriation of its contents of the value of about Rs. 20,000.00.I have given my careful consideration to the rival contentions at the bar. I amof the view that if the allegations as made in this complaint are proved thenprima facie the petitioners are likely to be adjudged guilty of certain offenceswith which they have been charged. It is not a case where it can be said thatthere is no evidence against the petitioners or if the allegations as made in thecomplaint are admitted to be correct, no case is made out against the petitioners,Therefore, I am of the view that it is not desirable to quash proceedings in thiscomplaint lodged by the respondent against the petitioners. I may further saythat whatever observations have been made above are only tentative with a viewto dispose of this petition and will not be binding upon the trial Court forreaching its own conclusion at the final stage. Therefore, the present petitionqua this complaint is dismissed.