The lack of vicarious liability for bank officers under the Indian Penal Code and the potential abuse of the court's process if the prosecution were allowed to continue.

This application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed by the petitioner for quashing the order taking cognizance dated 21.01.2011 passed by the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Bettiah, West Champaran in Complaint Case No. 2952(C) of 2010 whereby he has summoned the accused persons including the petitioner after finding a prima face case to be made out under Sections 409, 418, 384 and 166 of the Indian Penal Code.

2. The complaint case was filed by one Kamal Deo Thakur in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bettiah, West Champaran alleging therein that he was having savings account and a joint current account with his wife in the Central Bank of India, Lal Bazar, Bettiah Branch (for short ‘the bank’) and he had overdraft arrangement against various fixed deposits. On 06.06.1980 he took locker facility by paying one year rent in advance at Rs.40/- and renewed time to time through executing an agreement dated 06.06.1980 and the overdraft arrangement in the said current account was continuing. The bank debited Rs.40/- on 06.06.1980 from the said current account with overdraft as locker’s rent in advance and everything was well till 27.02.1993 but the bank officials initially showed unwillingness to allow him access to the locker on 27.02.1993 on the pretext of alleged locker rent arrears. However, after discussion with the bank officials, he was permitted to access the locker on 27.02.1993. He did not anticipate any foul play by the accused and, therefore, returned. Thereafter, the bank issued a notice dated 03.03.1993 under Certificate of Posting asking to pay locker rent arrear of Rs.500/- within one week failing which the locker operation would not be allowed. He sent a written request to the bank through registered post on 05.05.1993 for the details of arrears year wise, if any, and also requested to allow him to surrender the locker on payment of the same. It is further alleged that whenever he contacted the bank officials for surrendering the locker, he was asked to make payment of the locker rent for the period during which he was not actually allowed to operate the same. On 31.05.1996, he gave a written intimation that he would surrender the locker on paying the entire dues of arrears of rent and, thereafter, he paid Rs.1800/- against locker rent arrears and penal surcharges on 03.03.1996 for which the bank granted a receipt as proof of such payment. Even after entire demanded payment was made and no payment was made for renewing the lease of that locker, he was not allowed to operate or surrender the locker and his ornaments worth Rs. 2 lakhs were withheld by the bank. It has been further alleged that he filed a title suit bearing T.S. No. 1 of 1997 in the court of Sub-Judge, Bettiah and in the said title suit the learned Sub-Judge, vide order dated 18.07.2009 directed the accused persons to allow him to operate the locker by taking legally payable amount under the banking laws. On 21.09.2010, he personally met the petitioner in his office chamber and submitted a written memorandum fixing 15.10.2010 as the last date for redressing his grievances, but no reply was received from the petitioner. Subsequently, on 18.10.2010, the petitioner told him that his valuables kept in the locker has surreptitiously been misappropriated by the bank. The complainant has alleged that in the said locker 12 bangles of 22 carat gold weighing 3 tolas, golden necklace, chains and several rings were kept. He further alleged that it was also published in the newspaper that a locker was found open when the customer concerned came to operate and thereafter a police case was lodged after interrogation of the Branch Manager.

3. On the basis of these allegations, the complainant alleged that the accused persons have committed offences under Sections 166, 418, 384 and 409 of the Indian Penal Code.

4. After taking cognizance of the offence, vide order dated 21.10.2010, the learned Chief Judicial Magi