SUNIL KUMAR SINHA Vs. THE STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri Vishwanath Prasad Singh, learned senior counsel, who was assisted by Sri Sanjay Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Akhileshwar Dayal, learned A.P.P.

(2.) The sole petitioner, who at the relevant time was Branch Manager in the State Bank of India has approached this court invoking its inherent jurisdiction under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, with a prayer to quash an order dated 13.5.2013 passed by learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Lakhisarai whereby the learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate has rejected the petition filed under section 239 of the Cr.P.C. on behalf of the petitioner for his discharge in Halsi P.S. Case No. 6 of 2001, G.R. No. 46 of 2001 registered for the offence under section 420/467/468/471 of the Indian Penal Code. It was submitted by learned senior counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner while was posted as Branch Manager in Halsi Branch of the State Bank of India detected a false credit entry in the savings account of one Sanjay Kumar in which within a short span huge amount was withdrawn from the said account. It was argued by learned senior counsel that the petitioner immediately after detecting the same took steps for recovery of the said amount. Thereafter, the excess withdrawn amount with interest was got deposited in the account. However, after the petitioner was transferred from the said Branch his successor lodged the present F.I.R. and petitioner was made accused. The case was thoroughly investigated and finally the petitioner was exonerated by the Investigating Officer. The learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate differing with the police report took cognizance of offence even against the petitioner. At the stage of charge the petitioner filed a detailed petition for discharge vide Annexure ? '4' to the present petition elaborating the ground for his discharge. However, the learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate by the impugned order rejected the discharge petition without considering the facts disclosed in the discharge petition only on the ground that in this case cognizance order was earlier passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate. It has been argued by learned senior counsel that it is true that at the time of rejection of discharge petition, there is no requirement for assigning detailed reason, but the reason which has been assigned by the learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate appears to be unsustainable. He submits that once petition was filed for discharge giving detailed ground for his discharge, at least some thing should have been indicated, and as such, according to learned senior counsel the order impugned is liable to be set aside. During the pendency of this petition the petitioner has filed an interlocutory application vide I.A. No. 1445 of 2016 and he has brought on record the order dated 28.10.2015 whereby the learned Magistrate has framed charge. Accordingly, a prayer has been made to also quash the order of framing charge.

(3.) Learned A.P.P. after going through the case diary submits that there is some material for forming opinion that there is prima facie case against the petitioner and according to learned A.P.P. the petition is fit to be rejected.