TRILOCHAN SINGH KALSI Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner herein who is the Chief Branch Manager, State Bank of India, Munger, and has been impleaded as the sole accused in Complaint Case No. 1058(C) 2006 is aggrieved by and prays for the quashing of order dated 13.1.2007, whereby and whereunder cognizance for offences under Ss. 406, 166, 323 and 504 I.P.C. have been taken against him by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Munger.

(2.) THE complainant, Bharat Prasad Gupta, impleaded as O.P. No. 2 herein, filed the aforesaid complaint in the Court of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Munger, in relation to an occurrence said to have taken place from 14.2.2006 to 1.11.2006, inter alia, alleging that the Subordinate Judge -I, Munger, had passed a decree in favour of the complainant and witness no. 1 Ramavtar Joshi for a sum of Rs. 2607/ - and Rs. 587/ - in Title Suit Nos. 25/1985 and 17/1985 respectively and the decree amount as per order of the Court was to be paid by the Collector, Munger. It is said that as per the order of the Court the Collector, Munger, gave payment order of the aforesaid amount in favour of the complainant and Ramavtar Joshi who gave it to the Branch Manager, State Bank of India, Munger Branch for payment and although initially it was assured that payment would be made, later on he started evading to make payment. It is alleged that the order of the Court, payment order, and the related papers were all submitted in the office of the Branch Manager which were not returned by him. It is also alleged that the Collector, Munger under his letter no. 946 dated 4.3.2006 wrote to the Branch Manager for payment and yet the payment was not made. It is further alleged that on 6.11.2006 the complainant and Ramavtar Joshi went to the office of the Branch Manager, who refused to make payment and instead abused them in filthy language, assaulted by fists and slaps and pushed them out from the office. It is stated that since the police directed them to file a case in the Court therefore the complaint was being filed. It appears that the petitioner was not made an accused by name in the complaint petition filed on 7.11.2006 and on 9.11.2006 the complainant filed a petition to add the name of the Chief Branch Manager and the said prayer was allowed on the same day in pursuance whereof the name of the petitioner was inserted in the complaint petition.

(3.) IT has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that he is in no way responsible for non - payment of the aforesaid sums since he joined as Chief Manager of the Bank only on 10.6.2006. It has further been submitted that the complainant 'sreference to letter no. 946 of the Collector, Munger, was in fact a letter written by the Personal Assistant of the Collector, Munger, to the Branch Manager enclosing the petition of Ramavtar Joshi with a request to the Branch Manager to look into the matter and do the needful. In this context it was submitted that the chalan issued by the Court of Subordinate Judge in favour of Ramavtar Joshi for a sum of Rs. 587.00 was issued on 8.9.1987 and the payment order in favour of the complainant by virtue of decree dated 15.9.1997 was Issued on 11.5.1994 by the Subordinate Judge. it also appears that the Superintending Engineer, Ganga Pump Nahar Anchal, Munger, informed Ramavtar Joshi through setter that in pursuance of the order of payment, a sum of Rs. 587.00 had been deposited by civii chaian no. 395 dated 8.9.1987 in the Court. it further appears that the chaian was deposited by the Executive Engineer, Canal Division, in Court in the Execution Case of Ramavtar Joshi through Government Pleader on 8.9.1987 whereas in pursuance to the decree dated 15.9.1987 in Money Suit No. 25/1985 an amount of decreetal Rs. 2607.00 was deposited by chalan no. 192 dated 14.7.1988 and the chalans were deposited in the civil account of the Government. Thereafter on 11.5.1994 the payment order was issued by the Subordinate Judge directing payment to the complainant and accordingly Misc. Case No. 27/1991 filed by the complainant before the Collector, Munger, was dismissed.