The central legal point established in the judgment is the court's power to quash an FIR and charge sheet under Section 482 of the Code when there is a lack of cognitive material against the accused.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard learned advocate Mr. Premal Joshi for the petitioner, learned advocate Mr. Anil Patel for learned advocate Mr. VC Vaghela for the respondent No.2 and learned APP Mr. Ronak Raval for the respondent State.

2. By the present application filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 ("the Code"), the applicant has prayed to quash F.I.R. at Annexure 'A' registered as CR No. I-15 of 2013 for the offence under Sections 406, 420, 409, 463, 465, 466, 467, 468, 471 and 201 of Indian Panel Code., charge sheet at Annexure B as well as to quash Sessions Case No.1233 of 2015 pending before the learned Sessions Court, Bharuch.

3. What is alleged in the FIR is that Mr. Tusharbhai Narotttambhai Patel by forging documents and presenting them as genuine, has misappropriated the amount, which the clients of Bharuch District Cooperative Bank Limited (in short “the bank”) were depositing in the bank. It is further alleged that said Mr. Tusharbhai Narotttambhai Patel forged the vouchers and other documents and thereby, committed the offence of misappropriation.

4. Insofar as role of the present petitioner is concerned, it is alleged that he was serving as Branch Manager in the bank, where such incident took place.

5. Learned advocate Mr. Premal Joshi for the petitioner would submit that during the investigation of the offence, the investigating officer has found nothing adverse against the petitioner. He would further submit that entire charge sheet speaks no offence against the petitioner. He would further submit that the present petitioner has been arraigned as accused in the impugned FIR only on the ground that he was Manager of the bank.

6. Learned advocate Mr. Premal Joshi has also submitted that one another accused Mr. Arjunsinh Sanglod was also serving as Manager in the bank. This Court has exercised powers u/s 482 of the Code in favour of that person by allowing Criminal Misc. Application No.11675 of 2014 and thereby quashed and set aside the impugned FIR qua accused Mr. Arjunsinh Sanglod. He would further submit that present petitioner is similarly situated in the offence. Upon such submission, learned advocate Mr. Joshi prays to allow this petition.

7. Learned APP Mr. Ronak Raval fairly submits that no cognitive material is found against the present petitioner for the offence in question.

8. Learned advocate Mr. Anil Patel for learned advocate Mr. VC Vaghela for the respondent No.2 would submit that the amount, which was misappropriated, has been deposited back in the bank. He would further submit that since the investigating agency has not found any cognitive material against the present petitioner, which permits to take cognizance so as to involve the present petitioner in the offence in question, this Court may exercise inherent power u/s 482 of the Code in favour of the petitioner.

9. Having heard submissions of both the sides and considering the order passed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in Criminal Misc. Application No.11675 of 2014 qua other accused, who is similarly situated and whose role is identical to the role of the present petitioner, I am of the opinion that since no cognitive material is found against the petitioner, this is a fit case to exercise power u/s 482 of the Code.

10. For the foregoing reasons, the petition is hereby allowed and impugned F.I.R. at Annexure 'A' registered as CR No. I-15 of 2013 registered with Hansot Police Station, charge sheet at Annexure B as well as to quash Sessions Case No.1233 of 2015 pending before the learned Sessions Court, Bharuch qua present petitioner Dipakkumar Parvatishankar Pandya are hereby quashed and set aside. Rule is made absolute. Direct service is permitted.