JUDGMENT :

J.C. DOSHI, J.

1. The present petition seeks quashment of the FIR being I-CR No. 80 of 2016 registered with Dehgam Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 409 and 114 of the IPC which came to be registered by the respondent No. 2-org. complainant.

2. Briefly stated; the case of the petitioner is that the petitioner was serving as Deputy Manager (Accounts) in the State Bank of India, Dehgam Branch; while one Mr. Harishbhai Maganbhai Parmar who was shown accused No. 1 was serving Head Cash Officer in the said Branch and it is their joint responsibility to tally accounts (currency) in the Bank. That on 19/12/2006, a surprise checking was conducted by the Nodal Office, SBI, Ahmedabad and upon verification of the account, it was found that there is a deficit amount of Rs.4,52,500/- which were in denomination of coins. It is further stated that petitioner and said Mr.Harishbhai holds the responsibility to keep all the currency notes in the currency chest. Since the deficit of Rs.4,52,500/- has been recorded in the surprise visit; upon verification Bank Manager filed the FIR before Dehgam Police Station alleging aforesaid offence.

3. Heard learned Advocate Mr.Hriday Buch for the petitioner and learned APP Mr. Ronak Raval for respondent-State.

4. At the outset, it may be noted that the order dated 27/12/2016 passed by this Court indicates that Mr. Dipak Gaurishanker Joshi serving as Branch Manager with the SBI was personally present before the Court and learned APP was also heard while passing the said order.

5. Learned Advocate for the petitioner Mr. Buch would submit two fold submissions. Firstly; that indisputably the amount of Rs.4,52,500/- for which the alleged offence is registered, came back to the SBI and amount is deposited in the Bank. He would further submit that the alleged incident took place in the year 2006; but the FIR was lodged in the year 2016; almost after ten years. He would submit that on reading of the contents of the FIR, it appears that the delay in lodging the FIR is not properly explained. He would submit that on the contrary, as per order dated 27/12/2016 passed by this Court, this Court has inquired as to why the FIR is filed lately and the first informant gave reply that SBI had no intention to initiate any criminal proceedings, more particularly, having regard to the finding recorded in the departmental inquiry; but since the RBI directed the SBI to lodge the FIR, the Bank thought it fit to lodge the FIR after delayed period of ten years from the date of alleged incident. He would further submit that looking to such aspect, by no stretch of imagination, the offence of criminal breach of trust punishable under Section 409 of the IPC is made out.

5.1 Learned Advocate Mr. Buch would submit that the petitioner is retired person on being superannuated and is living his retirement life. It is also sought to be canvassed that the petitioner who is facing departmental proceeding on same set of evidence came to be exonerated from the charge of criminal breach of trust. Thus, in view of decision in case of M/s. Videocon Industries Ltd. vs. State of Maharashtra, AIR 2016 SC 2843, more particularly, paragraph 18 thereof, he would submit that in case of exoneration on merits, independent proceeding where the allegations are unfounded on the set of evidence, the criminal prosecution on the same set of facts cannot be allowed to continue.

5.2 Mainly on above submissions, learned Advocate for the petitioner submits to allow the present petition as the petitioner got retired and has not misappropriated the money of the Bank; else it would seriously and adversely hamper the life of the petitioner.

5.3 In light of these submissions, learned Advocate Mr. Buch for the petitioner seeks adjudication of this petition in favour of the petitioner.

6. Vehemently, learned APP Mr. Ronak Raval for respondent-State would submit that at earlier point of time vide letter dated 20/04/2007 Vide O/W No. DEH/NISC-2007-08-