Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
S. KUMAR, J.
Criminal Misc. Nos. 37919, 32987, 33426, 33800, 34056, 34553, 34859, 35364 of 2019 in Cr. Rev. No.522, 543, 525, 513, 530, 552 of 2019
(29.11.2021)
Santosh Haldankar @ Santosh
Gurudas Haldankar (in 37919)
Arun Mohanty @ Arun Kumar
Mohanty & Anr. (in 32987)
Sanjay Dongre & Anr (in 33426)
Ritesh Kumar Agarwal (in 33800)
Gourab Roy (in 34056)
Ranjan Sengupta & Anr. (in 34553)
Badal Mohanty & Anr. (in 34859)
Sanjay Karmakar (in 35364) : Petitioners
Vs.
State of Bihar & Anr. : Respondents
(in all)
Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 199 and 200 – Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 482 – Making and using false declaration – Cognizance of offences – Order of Magistrate summoning accused must reflect that he has applied his mind to facts of case, nature of allegation and role of persons as arrayed as accused in complaint petition – Indian Penal Code, save and except some provisions specifically providing, does not contemplate any vicarious liability on part of a party who is not charged directly for commission of an offence--Criminal liability cannot be fastened upon officers of company of being vicariously liable for affairs of company when company itself has not been made an accused – No allegations have been made against any of petitioners that they had anything to deal with personally in discharge of their official duty – Even complaint petition and material placed on record does not disclose commission of any offence – Impugned order quashed. (Paras 10, 18 to 20)
AIR 1992 SC 604, 2006(3) PLJR 139, 2019(1) PLJR(SC) 215, 2011(13) SCC 412; 2013(4) SCC 505 ; (2008) 5 SCC 668 ; (2008) 5 SCC 662 ; (2006) 6 SCC 736 ; 2005 CriLJ 4140 ; Niro Devi Vs. State of Bihar (Criminal Miscellaneous No. 36523 of 2014) ; Heera Verma & Ors Vs. State of Bihar (Crminal Miscellaneous No. 48696 of 2013) ; (2002) 1 SCC555 ; M/s Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of Maharashtras and Ors, Cr. Appeal No. 330 of 2021-LL2021 SC 211 ; 2021(3) RCR(Criminal)734--Referred.
(2013) 4 SCC 412; AIR 2021 SC 4587 – Relied.
S. KUMAR, J.:–Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. This petition under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C has been filed for quashing the order dated 10.01.2019 passed in Complaint Case No. 1077 (C) of 2018, passed by learned ACJM-III, Patna, by which learned Magistrate has taken cognizance of offences under Section 199 and 200 of IPC and issued processes against the petitioners for their appearance to face the trial.
3. Briefly stated, the facts of the case is that Opposite Party No. 2 filed complaint case before the learned CJM, Patna with following allegations:—
(a) Opposite Party No. 2 (Complainant) was appointed on the post of Branch Head, Patna Operations, issued under the signature of head H.R. Operation, HDFC Bank Ltd. Mumbai and Opposite Party No. 2 joined on 26.03.2012 at whole sale banking operation, Jamal Road, Patna.
(b) Opposite Party No. 2 (Complainant) duty was to properly re-check the clearing cheques and trade related documents before sending it to the Central Processing Units and while working Opposite Party No. 2 (complainant) an inquiry was initiated against him and he was put under suspension by order dated 25.02.2016 on charge of some serious lapses committed by him and thereafter he was terminated from service on 30.06.2016.
(c) RTI reply dated 02.12.2016 sent by Reserve Bank of India, intimated Opposite Party No. 2 (Complainant) that HDFC Bank has reported a fraud with reference number HDFC1601-0070 dated 11.03.2016 and a police complaint with Kotwali Police Station was lodged being Diary No. GD1143 dated 29.07.2016.
(d) Opposite Party No. 2 (Complainant) in order to ascertain the truth with respect to said letters made application before the Public Information Officer, Kotwali P.S to provide the details of the said complaint then information was provided vide letter dated 20.02.2017 in which it was stated that HDFC lodged sanha on 29.07.2016 GD No. 1143 regarding loss of diary of HDFC Bank.
(e) Opposite Party No. 2 had lodged complaint before the National Stock Exchange of India with regard to non reporting of fraud with Stock Exchange upon which, accused/petitioners reported National Stock Exchange of India vide letter dated 28.04.2017 that Opposite Party No. 2 is an accused and ex employee of the HDFC Bank and involved in fraud
(f) Opposite Party NO. 2(complainant) also came to know about the order dated 22.05.2017 addressed by the accused/petitioners to the National Stock Exchange of India where it was wrongly and intentionally mentioned that Opposite Party No. 2 committed fraud of Rs. 1.86 Crores.
(g) Criminal complaint with Kotwali PS was lodged against the Opposite Party No. 2 (Complainant) which further revealed that information dated 03.07.2017 GD No.1143 was registered on the basis of application made by R. Mani, State Head, HDFC Bank, Currency Chest, Jamal Road, Patna, with regard to loss of the General Diary.
(h) There was no wrong committed by Opposite Party No. 2 (complainant) to the HDFC Bank, however, accused persons knowingly and intentionally furnished wrong information to the Reserve Bank of India and National Stock Exchange of India that Opposite Party No. 2 (complainant) is an accused in criminal case of alleged fraud involving Rs. 1.86 Crores.
(i) Opposite Party No. 2 (Complainant) further got information from Registrar, Central Information Commission, that a fraud was committed by certain employees including Opposite Party No. 2 of HDFC Bank in Bhagalpur Branch in connection with complaint bearing GD No.1143 dated 29.07.2016 lodged before Kotwali Police Station, however, Opposite Party No. 2 (Complainant) was never posted in Bhagalpur and always remained posted in Patna.
(j) Wrong information was given by the accused persons purposely and intentionally to malign the prestige and reputation of complainant so that he does not get suitable job.
4. Opposite Party No. 2 (Complainant) was examined on SA in which he supported the allegations as made out in the complaint petition and one witness Rakesh K
The complaint under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C must disclose the commission of a cognizable offence, and vicarious liability cannot be imposed without proper allegations and evidence.
Vicarious liability cannot be imposed on directors solely by virtue of their positions; specific allegations of wrongdoing must exist for criminal liability to be established.
Vicarious liability in criminal law cannot be imposed without explicit statutory provisions, and allegations must demonstrate direct involvement and intent of the accused.
High Court quashed FIRs against financial institution officials as mala fide counterblast to lawful recovery proceedings, lacking prima facie offence ingredients despite photocopy evidence, exercisin....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
