RAVINDRA SHETTY Vs. NARAYAN GHOSH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This batch of criminal petitions under Section 482 CrPC involving a common question of law were taken up for joint hearing and are now being disposed of by this common judgment. For the sake of convenience, I will first decide Criminal Petition No. 66(SH) of 2011 and thereafter apply my decision thereon, so far as possible, to the facts of the remaining criminal petitions. The petitioner in Criminal Petition No. 66(SH) of 2011 is currently serving as Chief Manager of Vijaya Bank at Hanumantha Nagar Branch, Bangalore, and was at the relevant time posted at the Shillong Branch of the Bank in the same capacity. Sometime in the month of September, 2011, the respondent filed a complaint petition against the petitioner and three other persons before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Shillong, inter alia, alleging that:

(2.) The learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Shillong thereafter registered the complaint petition as C.R. Case No. 1247 of 2011, took cognizance of the offences under Section 120-B/406/409/417/418/419/420 IPC and issued summons to the petitioner for his appearance before her. According to the petitioner, the summons did not bear the date on which he was to appear in Court or the date on which the same was issued: it contained only the signature of the presiding officer of the Court. It is the case of the petitioner that the Shillong Branch of the Bank had appointed the accused No. 4 as the collector for the scheme called Jeevan Nidhi Deposit, but he failed to deposit the money so collected by him with the Bank and that it was only when the account of the complainant/ respondent ("respondent" hereafter) got matured and a claim was made to the Bank for withdrawal that the Bank came to know that the accused No. 4 had been cheating the respondent. Several complaints were also apparently filed thereafter by other customers of the Bank. This prompted the Bank to conduct internal inquiry whereupon it was discovered that the accused had misappropriated most of the collections made by him instead of depositing the same with the Bank. Under instruction from the management of the Bank, an FIR to this effect has been lodged by the present Chief Manager of the Bank (the accused No. 3 in the complaint petition), the successor-in-office of the petitioner, on 14.3.2011 with Shillong Sadar Police Station, which accordingly registered the case as Shillong Sadar P.S. Case No, 35(3) of 2011 under Sections 403/409/420 IPC and arrested the accused No. 4, who is now in custody. Aggrieved by the impugned order of the learned Judicial Magistrate taking cognizance of the offences alleged against: him by the respondent, this criminal petition is now filed by the petitioner for quashing the proceedings.

(3.) Both Mr. K. Paul, the learned counsel for the petitioner, and Mr. P. Nongri with Mr. N. Mozika, the learned counsel for the respondent, were heard at length. Unfolding his submissions, the learned counsel for the petitioner contends that there is no allegation whatsoever against the petitioner in the complaint petition to show that he had illegally induced the respondent to part with some valuable security, which is the sine qua non for proving the offence of cheating nor is there any allegation made against him that the money was ever entrusted by the respondent with the Bank so as to constitute the offence of criminal breach of trust: the monies were collected by accused No. 4 but were never deposited with the Bank. Even if the entire allegations made in the complaint are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety also, argues the learned counsel, the allegations made by the respondent do not prima facie constitute any offence against the petitioner. According to the learned counsel, the learned Magistrate has failed to apply his mind to the facts of the case and has in the process exceeded his jurisdiction in taking cognizance of the offences and issued the process: this is an abuse of process of Court. He, therefore, submits that the impugned order is unsustainable in law, and is liable to be quashed. On the other hand, Mr. N. Mozika, the learned counsel for the respondent, supports the impugned order and submits that the learned Magistrate has properly exercised his jurisdiction in issuing process against the petitioner. It is the contention of the learned counsel that the accused No. 4 was appointed and engaged to collect the daily deposits from the respondent with his knowledge, and has the duty to oversee and monitor his (accused No. 4) day to day performance to safeguard the money of the depositors: he is thus equally liable for the crimes charged against the accused No. 4. He submits that the material available so far constitutes sufficient grounds for proceeding against the petitioner, and the criminal petition is liable to be dismissed.