Back
2019 Supreme(Gau) 272
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI
RUMI KUMARI PHUKAN, J.
Sri. Sudip Dhar - Appellant
Versus
State of Assam and others - Respondents
Criminal Pet. No. 219 of 2016
Decided On : 09-05-2019
For the Appellant : Mr. A.M. Barbhuiya.
For the Respondent: Mr. B.J. Dutta, learned Addl. P.P., Assam.
The main legal point established is that Section 482 of the CrPC can be invoked in rare cases to prevent abuse of process or miscarriage of justice, and due investigation is warranted before invoking this provision.
Headnote:
ATM Fraud - Criminal Proceedings - The court found that the accused petitioner was involved in ATM fraud cases by taking advantage of mechanical/computer defects and withdrawing money through false claims. The court dismissed the petition to quash the FIR, directing the investigating officer to proceed with the investigation.
Fact of the Case:
The United Bank of India lodged an FIR against the petitioner for multiple claims related to ATM card transactions, suspecting the petitioner of extorting money through false claims.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that although the FIR was filed on apprehension, the investigation revealed the complicity of the petitioner in ATM fraud cases, warranting further investigation.
Issues: The issue was whether the FIR disclosed a prima facie offence under Section 420 of the IPC against the petitioner and whether the case warranted quashing of the FIR.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that due investigation was warranted in the background of the case and that it was not a fit case to invoke Section 482 of the CrPC to quash the FIR.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the petition to quash the FIR, vacated the stay order, and directed the investigating officer to proceed with the investigation without further delay.
JUDGMENT :
1. Heard Mr. A.M. Barbhuiya, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. B.J. Dutta, learned Addl. PP, Assam.
2. By this application u/s 482 of CrPC, petitioner has sought for quashing of the FIR pertaining to Silchar PS Case No. 2745/2015 u/s 420 of IPC, lodged by respondent No. 2.
3. Necessary facts which reveals from the documents annexed with the petition is that the respondent No. 2, The United bank of India, Cachar, Silchar lodged an FIR against the present petitioner to the fact that Bank has received several claims relating to ATM Cards of their bank as well as other banks which were received through Dispute Management System Portial of National Payments Corporation of India which routes all the Inter Bank Transactions and that, claims related to alleged false transaction and the bank authority generally take the decision to accept or reject such claims based on the particulars contained in the electronic Journel (EJ) of the ATM with particular reference to the Response Code and the excess cash amount in the ATM. However, in the month of June, 2015, the bank received 4 more claims amounting to Rs. 44,00,000/- where the Electronic Journel contained a similar type of error and the CCTV footage were not also available and out of those 4 items, 2 claims were for Rs. 12,000/- relates to their bank and the account holder is the accused petitioner Sudip Dhar. It was disclosed in the FIR that a total 50 claims amounting to Rs. 4,32,000/- were received from the accused petitioner, 12 claims for Rs. 1,20,000/- from Mr Ranajay Dhar and 2 claims of Rs. 20,000/- were from Lila Dhar. Thus, it was found that the majority of claims have made by the accused petitioner Sudip Dhar and other claims were made by the persons with the same title which raised certain apprehension regarding the falsity of the claims. It is stated that one person have same money, transaction from ATM at the same time is unusual happenings. In the circumstances it was apprehended that the matter of extorting, vaxitious claims has been designed in the name of ATM card and the authenticity of such matter is required to be gone through. It was found that the accused petitioner is the habit of restoring to such numbers of ATM Cards withdrawal transaction taking advantage of some lacuna in the ATM functioning like erroneous printing of transaction status in Electronic Journal and non availability of CCTV Footage etc.
4. On the basis of said FIR, investigation was started and some relating officials were also examined. During the course of investigation and the accused petitioner was arrested. Certain ATM cards were also seized from the present accused petitioner but it reveals that detailed enquiry of the said is still pending.
5. Now, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the FIR itself failed to disclose any prima facie offence u/s 420 of IPC against the petitioner to initiate the criminal proceeding. It is submitted that having so many ATM on the part of the customer cannot be an offence and again raising claims against defaulted transaction also cannot be suspected. Furthermore, it has also been submitted that on the apprehension FIR has been filed without there being any such prima facie allegation to constitute the offence, hence same is bad in law and liable to be quashed and set aside.
6. I have heard the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner, who has put forward his argument on the basis of ground assigned in the petition. Also heard learned Addl. PP Mr. BJ Dutta who has contended that raising such repeated claims on the basis of various ATM Card by same person is a doubtful matter and such a matter should be enquired to unearth the entire gamut that has been complained by the informant in the FIR.
7. On perusal of the case diary, it reveals that IO has examined some bank officials
and is in the process of examining other relating officials as well as documents and is of opinion that the accused petitioner is the master mind of
