The main legal point established in the judgment is that the court will not quash a criminal proceeding unless there is a clear abuse of the process of the court or a manifestly attended mala fide proceeding. The court emphasized that the power to quash a criminal proceeding should be exercised sparingly and with circumspection.

JUDGMENT

Ajoy Kumar Mukherjee, J. - Present revisional application has been directed for quashing the proceeding including charge-sheet No. 354/16 dated 27.10.2016 under Sections 406/409/420 of the Indian Penal Code which has arisen out of Burwan Police Station Case No.282/14 dated 26.06.2014 corresponding to G.R. Case No. 1340/14.

2. The allegation levelled is that opposite party no.1 Dipayan Dey had given loan of Rs.12 lakhs to one Jiaul Rahaman (one of the co-accused persons in the aforesaid proceeding). Jiaul issued a cheque of Rs.6,90,000/- to make part payment out of the aforesaid loan amount Rs.12 lakhs. The cheque was a post dated cheque drawn upon HDFC Bank, Baguihati Branch. The said cheque was handed over to opposite party no. 1 pursuant to a written agreement on 20.03.2014. Two days thereafter, the accused Jiaul lodged a general diary being 1225 dated 22.03.2014 with the Burwan Police Station and intimated about loss of said cheque on 22.03.2014. Dipayan i.e. O.P. No.1 deposited the said cheque to his banker on 17.04.2014 and the cheque was honoured and was intimated by the bank. Jiaul was similarly informed by the bank since both Jiaul and O.P. No.1 maintained their respective accounts in HDFC bank though in different branches. After the deposit of said amount of Rs.6,90,000/- in the account of O.P. No.1, in terms of aforesaid cheque, Jiaul intimated the Baguihati Branch of the bank about the alleged loss of the aforesaid cheque and on enquiry Jiaul produced the said GD entry slip being No.1225 dated 22.03.2014 to the bank and requested the bank to reverse the deducted amount to his account.

3. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the bank asked Jiaul to inform the bank in writing about alleged loss of aforesaid cheque and accordingly Jiaul informed the bank about the alleged loss of cheque, in writing and after getting the said writing from Jiaul, bank reversed the entire amount from the account of the informant/ opposite party no. 1 to the account of accused Jiaul.

4. Mr. Sekhar Bose Learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the petitioner was the Branch Manager of Baguihati Branch at the relevant point of time. During investigation the enquiry officer wrote a letter to the bank about the role of Branch Manager in the aforesaid transaction. HDFC Bank Limited replied to the letter of the enquiry officer by a letter dated 20.08.2016 that Branch Manager has no role to play in passing credit and debit entries in the account of customers of the bank.

5. Mr. Bose, learned advocate further submits that O.P. No.1 Dipayan Dey filed an application before the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Berhampore, Murshidabad which was registered as complaint Case No. CC/55/2014 against the Branch Manager of HDFC Bank and in that application, opposite party no. 1 prayed for payment of Rs.6.9 lakhs with compensation of Rs.50,000/- and Rs.25,000/- for harassment. But learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum was pleased to dismiss the claim of the O.P. No.1 by an order dated 24.11.2016.

6. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that from the letter dated 02.06.2014 written by Bank to S.I. of Baguihati P.S. as asked for by their letter dated 25.05.2014, Bank immediate after getting auto generated SMS as to debit of the disputed amount with the allegation of misplaced and fraud relating to the impugned cheque and thereafter on verification, Bank got discrepancy in the rubber stamp of the principal accused Jiaul company used on the disputed cheque having a gap in the word 'ARINRICE' as 'ARIN' with gap 'RICE' and seeing this discrepancy the bank reversed the amount to safeguard the financial interest of their account holder and Consumer Forum also satisfied with this explanation given by bank and was pleased to dismiss the proceeding.

7. In the present proceeding after completion of the investigation, charge- sheet has already been submitted under Sections 406/419/420 o