LAWS(ORI)-2006-6-38

PATITAPABAN MISHRA Vs. LAXMAN CHANDRA PAUL

Decided On June 29, 2006
Patitapaban Mishra Appellant
V/S
Laxman Chandra Paul Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Petitioner as complainant filed I.C.C. No. 134/2004 in the Court of Learned J.M.F.C., Jajpur Road, inter alia, alleging commission of offence under Section 500 I.P.C. by the accused -opp. party.

(2.) BEREFT of unnecessary details the allegations made in the complaint petition are that on 6.12.2003 between 3.30 P.M. to 4.00 P.M., the Petitioner approached the accused -opp. party, who was the Branch Manger of Canara Bank at Jajpur Road, for obtaining an application form for withdrawal of a sum of Rs. 643.80 lying in deposit in the Savings Bank Account No. 6703 standing in the name of his son, who had unfortunately expired. The accused, who was working as the Branch Manager of the Bank, it was alleged, informed the Petitioner that an application should be filed by the widow of the deceased depositor enclosing the legal heir certificate. For the said purpose, the widow has to come to the Bank, fill up the application form and put her signature in presence of Branch Manager. Thereafter, it was told, the application along with the legal heir certificate shall be processed and the widow would be permitted to withdraw the amount for self and on behalf of other legal heirs, but then for the said purpose she has to once again come to the Bank. On coming to know about the procedure, the complainant wanted to know as to whether it was necessary for the widow to come to the Bank twice and whether it would be possible to withdraw the amount on the strength of an affidavit sworn to in the Court, To the said question, it is alleged that the Branch Manager replied.

(3.) IT appears that the Learned Magistrate recorded initial statement of the complainant and after perusing the averments made in the complaint petition and statement made by the complainant in Court finding that the words uttered by the accused were general in nature, not aiming at any particular individual, by order dated 7.10.2005 dismissed the complaint petition.