K.M. SARKAR Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS application has been filed for quashing the order dated 13.12.99 passed by Sub -Divisional Magistrate, Jamshedpur in C/1 Case No. 892/99 whereby he took cognizance under Section 406/420 of the IPC and issued summons to the petitioners.

(2.) It appears that petitioner no. 1 vas Assistant General Manager of Allahabad Bank, whereas petitioner no. 2 was Chairman -cum -Managing Director of Allahabad Bank. It is stated in the complaint petition that one Ram Chandra Singh took loan of Rs. 10 lakhs from Allahabad Bank, Bistupur Branch on the guarantee of O.P. Nos. 2 and 3. It further appears that O.P. Nos. 2 and 3 had become guarantor and they have executed vide Annexure -3. It is alleged that when said Ram Chandra Singh did not repay the loan amount, the O.P. Nos. 2 and 3 wrote letters to petitioners for realizing the loan amount from said Ram Chandra Singh, so that F.D.R. of opposite parties could be released, but petitioners did not take any step and misappropriated fixed deposit amount of opposite party nos. 2 and 3 by adjusting it towards amount of Ram Chandra Singh. Accordingly, present case filed.

(3.) It appears that learned court below after examining complainants/opposite parties and their witnesses took cognizance against the petitioners under Sections 406/ 420 I.P.C. It is submitted by Mr. A.S. Dayal, learned counsel for the petitioners that admittedly, complainants/opposite parties are guarantor of Ram Chandra Singh and they pledged their FDR as a continuing security for the loan obtained by Ram Chandra Singh. It is further submitted that complainant/opposite parties had executed a security bond, wherein they agreed that in the event of any default made by Ram Chandra Singh in repayment of loan amount, the Bank will have right of set off and/or adjust the loan amount from the amount of FDR of complainants -opposite parties towards loan amount. It is submitted that Ram Chandra Singh did not repay the loan amount, therefore, as per the terms of security bond Bank adjusted the loan amount from aforesaid fixed deposit amount. Thus, no offence under Section 406/420 IPC is made out. 4. It appears that Mr. L.K. Lal and Mr. Prabhat Kumar, filed Wakalatnama on behalf of O.P. Nos. 2 and 3, but they did not turn up to oppose this application. However, Sri Amaresh Kumar, Addl. P.P. appeared and submitted that there is no illegality in the impugned order. 5. Having heard the submissions, I have gone through the records of the case. 6. Opposite party nos. 2 and 3 admitted in the complaint petition itself that they are guarantor of Sri Ham Chandra who took loan of Rs. 10 lakhs from Allahabad Bank. It is alleged at paragraph No. 7 of the complaint petition that petitioners, who are Bank officials had adjusted Rs. 3,73,000/ - from the FDR of complainants -opposite parties towards the loan of Ram Chandra Singh and issued no dues certificate in his favour. It appears that Bank officials gave notice to Ram Chandra Singh vide Annexure -4 series for repayment of loan amount. It also appears that copy of said notice given to O.P. Nos. 2 and 3. It further appears from Annexure -5 that O.P. No.3 wrote a letter to Branch Manager, Allahabad Bank for adjusting FDR amount against the loan given to Ramchandra Singh and Mrs. Madhu Malti Roy. Thus, from the aforesaid fact, it is clear that said Ram Chandra Singh did not repay loan amount. It appears from Annexure -3 security bond, that both the guarantor gave power to the Bank to set off and/or adjust loan from the amount covered under fixed deposit account no. 02155 to 02164 in the event Ram Chandra Singh fails to repay the loan. Thus, it appears that Bank authority adjusted the fixed deposit amount towards loan amount as per terms of security bond (Annexure -3). Under the said circumstance, I find that no offence is made out against the petitioners. 7. Accordingly, I allow this application and quash impugned order dated 13.12.99 passed in C/1 Case No. 892/99.