JUDGMENT :

PRABHAT KUMAR SINGH, J.

1. The present application has been filed for setting aside/quashing the order dated 25.06.2016 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, Patna (hereinafter referred to as “Magistrate”) in Complaint Case No. 25388 (C) of 2014 whereby the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance under Sections 409, 420 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioners as well as order dated 15.11.2017 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-X, Patna (hereinafter referred to as “Addl. Sessions Judge”) in Criminal Revision No. 542 of 2016 whereby the learned Addl. Sessions Judge has approved the order of learned Magistrate by holding that there is no illegality in the order of cognizance.

2. It is submitted on behalf of petitioners that petitioner no. 1 in the present case is the ICICI Bank, petitioner no. 2 is Zonal Head Retail of ICICI Bank, Bhopal, petitioner no. 3 is Regional Head of ICICI Bank, Patna, whereas petitioner no. 4 is the Branch Manager of ICICI Bank, Frazer Road, Patna and all have been made accused only when steps were taken for recovery of the loan amount and properties, kept as security, were auction sold.

3. The brief fact, giving rise to the case, is that the complainant by pledging jewellery had taken gold loan of Rs. 90,600/-. The total value of the jewellery pledged by the complainant, was done by the bank, which was worth Rs. 90,683/-. The loan was sanctioned and money was transferred in the account of complainant on 30th November, 2012 and the maturity date for returning back the loan amount was May 30, 2013. On expiry of period of maturity, despite several notices sent to the complainant intimating all the terms for depositing the loan amount and for redeeming the pledged jewellery, no reply was received from the complainant to this effect and finally, in July 2013, the loan account of the complainant became NPA. Thereafter, the complainant on August 4, 2013, filed an application seeking time till September, 2013 to repay the loan. In spite of that, the complainant did not pay the same. Thereafter, on August 13, 2013, paper publication was done by the bank in two local daily newspaper. On August 24, 2013, auction was conducted by the bank and on August 30, 2013, the pledged gold ornaments were auctioned for Rs. 1,00,632/- to one Mr. Ashok Kumar and said auction amount was adjusted against loan amount and thereafter, On September 30, 2013, after deducting the interest calculated for the period from 31.11.2012 to 30.09.2013, the balance amount of Rs. 545/- was sent to the complainant in form of demand draft, which was returned by her and she filed a complaint on February 26, 2014 before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Patna.

4. It is submitted on behalf of petitioners that none of the petitioners was involved in either sanction of gold loan or in auction of gold ornaments, but the learned Magistrate, without perusing the allegations made in the complaint petition and material available on record, has passed a mechanical and arbitrary order. Against the order of learned Magistrate, the petitioners preferred a revision, vide Criminal Revision No. 542 of 2016, which was also heard and dismissed by learned Addl. Sessions Judge, vide order dated 15.11.2017. Thus, the present application has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short “Cr.P.C.”) assailing both the afore-mentioned orders, which have come up for consideration before this Court.

5. Sri Rana Vikram Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners has assailed both the aforesaid orders mainly on four grounds.

6. Firstly, it is submitted that it is not the case of the complainant that any of the bank officials (petitioners) tried to deceive her either by making a false or misleading representation or by any other action or omission, nor it is the case that petitioners offered her any fraudulent or dishonest inducement to deliver any property or to consent to the retention thereof. None of the ingredien