CHAIRMAN BANK OF INDIA Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) TWO petitioners, while invoking inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, have prayed for quashing of an order dated 18.11.2000 passed by Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Patna in Complaint Case No.1140(c) of 2000 and also subsequent orders whereby processes were directed to be issued for securing attendance of accused persons including both the petitioners.

(2.) SHORT fact of the case is that the opposite party no.2 filed a complaint in 2 the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Patna, which was numbered as Complaint Case No.1140(c) of 2000 arraying the petitioners and other two as accused for commission of offence under Sections 420, 406, 409 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code. It was disclosed in the complaint petition that M/S Asian Alloys Ltd. (Accused No.1) had floated secured redeemable debentures highlighting attractive interest and other lucrative offers in the year 1997 in the brochure issued by the Company. The Bank of India was shown as debenture trustee of the scheme. On the publication made by the Accused No.1 (Company), the complainant purchased ten application forms worth Rs.10,000/- each and thereafter, he deposited the cheques, which were credited in the account of Company through the Bank of India, Patna, which had operated as collection centre on behalf of the Company. The date of redemption of such debenture was 28.12.1998 i.e. one year six months from the date of purchase. However, even after expiry of the said period, payment was not made to the petitioners, despite the fact that complainant had sent 3 several reminders and legal notices. Both the petitioners being trustees of Accused No.1 were also approached by the complainant. Accordingly, it was alleged that the accused persons had cheated the complainant and obtained wrongful gain. After filing the complaint petition, the complainant was examined on S.A. and in support of complaint, three witnesses were also examined. The learned Magistrate, after examining the materials available on record by order dated 18.11.2000, took cognizance of the offence under Sections 420 and 406 of the Indian Penal Code and directed for summoning all the accused persons including both the petitioners. Thereafter, other processes were also issued.

(3.) BESIDES hearing learned counsel for the parties, I have also perused the materials available on record. From the contents of the complaint petition, it is 7 not clear as to how both the petitioners were made accused in the present case. There is no specific assertion regarding commission of offence against the petitioners. Moreover, the Bank was itself a trustee, which has also been mentioned in the counter affidavit filed by the opposite party no.2. The allegation made in the complaint petition appears to be purely civil in nature and for which criminal court cannot be allowed to proceed. After going through the materials available on record, the court is of the opinion that it is a fit case for interference with the impugned order.