2009 Supreme(SC) 1477

2009(6) Supreme 302
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
R.V. Raveendran and B. Sudershan Reddy, JJ.
M.N.Ojha & Ors. — Appellants
versus
Alok Kumar Srivastav & Anr. — Respondents
Criminal Appeal No. 1582 of 2009
(Arising out of SLP(crl.) No. 1875 of 2008)
Decided on : 21-08-2009

IMPORTANT POINT
Inherent powers do not confer an arbitrary jurisdiction on the High Court to “act according to whim or caprice. That statutory power has to be exercised sparingly, with circumspection and in the rarest of rare cases.

Headnote:Criminal Procedure Code,1973 – Section 482-Loan sanctioned by Punjab National Bank, Patna City of Rs. 5 lakhs to M/s. Nirmala Alankar House, Patna City, a proprietary concern owned by one who furnished security of five guarantors including the respondent – Complainant who in turn deposited Fixed Deposit Receipts (FDRs) worth Rs. 50,000/-, each duly signed authorizing bank to appropriate the proceeds of FDRs along with interest if the timely payments were not made by the borrower – Appellant 1 Senior Manager of having realized that recovery of bank loan became impossible adjusted some amounts from the FDRs furnished by the guarantors as security towards the dues of the borrower – Guarantors addressed a legal notice to the Deputy General Manager, Vigilance Cell, PNB, New Delhi, Zonal Manager, PNB, Patna and Regional Manager PNB,(Haridwar) alleging therein that they were put to serious inconvenience due to the misconduct on the part of Appellant no. 1. – Complainant being aggrieved by action of the bank in appropriating the fixed deposit amount, filed a Complaint Case in the court of SDJM, Patna City under Section 409,422,426 and 120B IPC -SDJM, Patna City, took cognizance of the case vide order dated 22.3.2004; and directed non-bailable warrant of arrest against all appellants – Petition thereagainst for quashment of criminal proceedings-Dismissed by High Court – Appeal – Averments and allegations made in the complaint not disclosed the commission of any offence by the appellants or any one of them – They were merely discharging their duties to realize and recover amounts due to the bank from the borrower as well as guarantors – The complaint obviously had been filed as counter blast to the proceedings already initiated by bank – It was clearly intended to prevent the public servants from discharging their duties – High Court almost abdicated its duty in refusing to exercise its jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure – Impugned order of High Court set aside and the criminal proceedings against appellants quashed – Appeal allowed. (Paras 14 to 17)

       Facts of the Case :

        1. Loan was sanctioned by Punjab National Bank, Patna City herein in the instant case of Rs. 5 lakhs to M/s. Nirmala Alankar House, Patna City, a proprietary concern owned by one J who furnished security of five guarantors including the respondent-complainant who in turn deposited Fixed Deposit Receipts (FDRs) worth Rs. 50,000/-, each duly signed authorizing bank to appropriate the proceeds of FDRs along with interest if the timely payments were not made by the borrower.Appellant1 Senior Manager of having realized that recovery of bank loan became impossible adjusted some amounts from the FDRs furnished by the guarantors as security towards the dues of the borrower. Guarantors addressed a legal notice to the Deputy General Manager, Vigilance Cell, PNB, New Delhi,Zonal Manager, PNB, Patna and Regional Manager PNB,(Haridwar) alleging therein that they were put to serious inconvenience due to the misconduct on the part of Appellant no. 1. Complainant being aggrieved by action of the bank in appropriating the fixed deposit amount, filed a Complaint Case in the court of SDJM,Patna City under Section 409,422,426 and 120B IPC .SDJM, Patna City, took cognizance of the case vide order and directed non-bailable warrant of arrest against all appellants. Petition thereagainst for quashment of criminal proceedings was dismissed by High Court.

        2. Present appeal has been filed against said order of High Court.

       Findings of the Court :

        Averments and allegations made in the complaint not disclosed the commission of any offence by the appellants or any one of them. They were merely discharging their duties to realize and recover amounts due to the bank from the borrower as well as guarantors. The complaint obviously had been filed as counter blast to the proceedings already initiated by bank. . It was clearly intended to prevent the public servants from discharging their duties. High Court almost abdicated its duty in refusing to exercise its jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Impugned order of High Court was set aside and the criminal proceedings against appellants were quashed. Appeal was allowed.

       Result : Appeal allowed.