IMPORTANT POINT
A litigant should not be allowed to file vexatious complaints to otherwise settle their scores by setting the criminal law into motion.

JUDGMENT

N.V. RAMANA. J.

1. Leave granted.

2. This appeal arises out of order dated 6th November, 2012 of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad refusing the prayer of the appellant for quashing the proceedings in Complaint Case No. 2397 of 2012 under Sections 34, 379, 411, 417, 418, 420, 457, 458 and 477 IPC pending on the file of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ghaziabad.

3. The facts relevant for the disposal of this appeal, in a nutshell, are that on 21st March, 2005, respondent No.2 herein filed a private complaint (Annexure P/2) in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. against the appellant herein and three other accused who are not parties before us, invoking Sections 34, 379, 411, 417, 418, 420, 467, 458 and 477 IPC.

According to the said complaint, the complainant was holding a Bank Account in the Ghaziabad District Co-operative Bank, Maliwada, Ghaziabad where the appellant was the Branch Manager. It was alleged in the complaint that taking advantage of the innocence of the complainant and his brother, the accused, mischievously obtained their signatures on blank cheques and committed theft of their hand bag in which the signed cheque book was kept. When they came to know that their bag containing signed cheques and other papers was missing, not knowing the misdeed of the accused, a search has been undertaken for the lost bag containing signed cheques and also lodged a written report on 17th May, 2004 at Sihani Gate Police Station to that effect.

The Bank was also informed in writing on 17th May, 2004 itself that duly signed cheque book of Account No. 1132 has been lost, hence no payment on the lost cheques be made to any person and all those cheques may be cancelled (Annexure P/1). It was further stated by the complainant that when he received a notice dated 6th October, 2004 under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act from Neelam Rani (co-accused, not party before us) stating that Cheque No.083697 (one of the lose cheques) for Rs.5,00,067/- as if issued by him towards the purchase of Kachi bricks and coal from "Neelam Brick Field", then he realized that there was some planned conspiracy and the cheque book was not actually lost but was stolen and being misused by the accused for drawing various amounts from his bank account. In the said complaint, the complainant - respondent No.2, has totally denied any such transaction with "Neelam Brick Field" and alleged that the accused cooked up that transaction, hatched a conspiracy with the bank employees for cheating him, and accordingly all the amounts of the complainant and his family have been "looted".

4. The main allegation levelled against the appellant was that when a written information had already been given on 17th May, 2004 to the appellant who was the Branch Manager of the Bank not to honour the lost cheques and cancel them, he should have performed his duties with utmost responsibility and when the stolen/lost cheque was presented, he should have given the information of its presentation to the police as well as to the complainant. On the contrary, the appellant neither handed over the person who presented the cheque, to the police, nor brought to the notice of the complainant about its presentation.

It is because of the involvement of the appellant in the conspiracy he has not discharged his duties as Branch Manager with responsibility and acted against the instructions in the letter dated 17th May, 2004 only to harass the complainant and his family financially and mentally. Thus the appellant played a role in the conspiracy, and therefore, the complainant lodged the complaint under the aforesaid sections of IPC against the appellant as well as other accused.

5. After registering the Complaint Case, the learned Magistrate recorded statements under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. and issued summons against the accused under Section 204 Cr.P.C. Two other co-accused challenged the summoning order before the H