G LAKSHMI NARAYANAMMA Vs. STATE OF A P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These petitions are filed to quash the FIRs registered against the petitioners on the basis of complaints given by the UCO Bank (i.e.,2nd respondent in all these petitions) for offences under Section 420,464 and 468 IPC. Since common questions of fact and law arise in these petitions, they are being disposed of by a common order.

(2.) 2nd respondent (the Bank) filed private complaints against the petitioners alleging that petitioners, who are working in the office of the Accountant General, availed consumer loans by producing salary slips issued by the Salary Disbursing Officer, with copies of irrevocable letter of authority given by them (petitioners/borrowers) authorizing him (Salary Disbursing Officer) to deduct the monthly installment amount to be paid by them to the Bank, directly to the credit of their loan account with the bank, and an undertaking letter of the Disbursing Officer, undertaking to deduct the monthly installments payable by the petitioners from their salary and that those amounts would be remitted to the credit of the account of the borrowers/petitioners, and when petitioners committed default in payment of the monthly installments due from them, it approached the Salary Disbursing Officer with a request to enforce the undertaking given by him, it came to light that the undertaking letters of Salary Disbursing Officer produced by the petitioners before the Bank were in fact not given by him, and hence are liable for punishment under Section 420,464 and 468 IPC, were referred to police for investigation. So police registered the impugned FIRs against petitioners.

(3.) The contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioners is that the second respondent-Bank by suppressing material fact of its launching prosecution against the petitioners for an offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (for short "the Act") gave reports against the petitioners to adapt arm twisting method of harassing and inconveniencing the petitioners, by trying to convert a civil liability into a crime. Relying on paras 54 and 56 in Andhra Pradesh Scheduled Tribes Employees Association v. Aditya Pratap Bhanj Dev and others reading: