RUMI KUMARI PHUKAN, J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner Ms. M Dev as well as learned counsel for the State/respondent No. 1, Mr. N J Dutta, Addl. PP, Assam. Also heard Mr. P N Choudhury, learned counsel for the respondent No. 2.

2. The petitioner being the Deputy Manager, State Bank of India, Panbazar, Guwahati lodged an FIR on 07.10.2010 regarding non-availability of the items in the locker No. 1090 of their bank. In the FIR, it was revealed that on that day while the repairing of few lockers of the bank was going on at their request, by the mechanic Sunil Barman in presence of their staff Mirdula Bhattacharjee they found that the aforesaid locker was not properly locked. The fact was immediately brought to the notice of the hirer of the locker Sri Prakash Chandra Medhi and Smti. Hemalata Medhi and they also visited the bank and give the list of the articles not available in the locker.

3. On the basis of the aforesaid FIR Panbazar PS Case No. 336/2010 u/s 461/380 IPC was registered. Several witnesses were examined during the course of investigation and at the conclusion of the investigation, the IO held that as the informant was the In-charge of the locker at the relevant time and one of the key of the locker remains with the bank authority and another with the hirer and locker was found open without breaking and he also signed the relevant register prior to the occurrence on 11.03.2010, so he was involved in the incident and charge-sheet was submitted against the informant as an accused (present petitioner) u/s 461/380 of IPC.

4. The accused petitioner entered his appearance before the learned trial Court and the learned trial Court on the basis of case of the materials relied by prosecution, framed the charge u/s 461/380 of IPC on 20.11.2015 to which he pleaded not guilty. Challenging the legality and validity of the framing of charge, present application u/s 482 Cr.P.C has been preferred on the ground that the impugned order of framing charge against the petitioner is bad in law and cannot sustain due to the lack of evidence against the petitioner and in fact, he was the informant who immediately informed the matter to police after such detection of theft.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner highlighting the facts behind, has submitted about procedure for having a locker in the bank and submitted that after executing an agreement between hirer of the locker and the Bank, the Bank Authority cannot open the locker of the hirer. At the time of opening the locker, the bank Authority and the customer have to use their respective keys at a time, otherwise no one can open locker by single key. But at the time of closing the locker, the customer can close the locker and the key of the bank is not required and bank Authority cannot close the locker. In the present case, the locker in-Charge Smti. Mirduala Bhattacharjee has stated that the locker was functioning well and there was no tampering but the door of the locker was slightly opened. Even the hirer did not lodge an FIR against the petitioner and none of the witnesses could make out any prima facie allegation against the accused petitioner and the I/O has filed the charge-sheet against him mechanically without there being any prima facie against him, which is illegal and has resulted in serious abuse of process of law and hence liable to quash and set aside.

6. The learned counsel for the petitioner in her argument drawn the attention of the Court to the statement of witnesses recorded during the course of investigation, which is stated to be totally insufficient to make out a prima facie case against the petitioner. It contends that the I/O has failed to consider the statement given by Smti. Mirduala Bhattacharjee, locker In-charge of the bank that there was no tampering of the lock, that bank Authority alone cannot open the lock unless the hirer remains present and used their respective keys at a time. It is further submitted that there was more than th