The court ruled that allegations in the FIR constituted a cognizable offence, and mere repayment of funds does not negate the wrongdoing.

JUDGMENT :

Rakesh Kainthla, J.

The petitioner has filed the present petition for quashing the FIR No. 109 of 2023, dated 9.12.2023, registered at Police Station, Kumarsain, District, Solan HP, for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 406, 408, 420 and 468 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and the consequential proceedings arising out of the FIR.

2. Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to the present petition are that the informant made a complaint to the police asserting that the petitioner was working as Assistant Manager of Branch Office Shivan in H.P. State Cooperative Bank. Nine customers raised objections regarding the transactions in their loan accounts. The bank conducted a fact-finding inquiry and Inquiry Officer reported that the petitioner/accused had provided financial accommodation to the customers. The customer agreed to provide him with funds which he transferred for personal benefit. It has caused a loss of Rs.16,80,314/- to the bank. The police registered the FIR and conducted the investigation.

3. Being aggrieved from the registration of the FIR, the petitioner has filed the present petition for quashing of FIR and consequential proceedings. It was asserted that the bank authorities hatched a conspiracy against the petitioner to get him involved in a false case of financial impropriety. The petitioner had carried out the transactions through different banks for depositing the same in the MIT account of Branch Office, Shivan on 24.3.2023 and 27.3.2023 at the instance of respondent No.5. The petitioner had borrowed the money from his relatives which stood refunded to the individuals concerned. This fact was brought to the notice of the Superintendent of Police, Shimla and SHO, Kumarsain. M/s J.M.A & Company, Chartered Accountants, Sanjauli wrote a letter to the bank stating that there was no financial loss to the bank except the interest loss of Rs.49,908/- which occurred due to the technical fault. The amount of Rs.16,80,314/- which was borrowed by him from the money lender was refunded to them at the instance of respondent No.5. FIR was wrongly registered. Therefore, he prayed that the present petition be allowed and the FIR be quashed.

4. The police filed the status report asserting that the record of four customers was obtained. It was found that the loan amount was deposited in their account and it was transferred by cheque or NEFT/RTGS. The petitioner was asked to join the investigation but he never joined the investigation. The statements of customers were recorded who stated that the loan was deposited in their account and they had themselves handed over blank cheques NEFT, and RTGS forms to the Branch Manager. The money was received by them and they do not want any action should be taken against the petitioner. Hence the status report.

5. I have heard Mr. Rakesh Kumar Dogra, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Ajit Sharma, learned Deputy Advocate General, for respondents No. 1 to 3-State.

6. Mr. Rakesh Kumar Dogra, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the status report shows that money has been paid to the customers and they do not want to take any action against the petitioner. The continuation of the proceedings amounts to abuse of the process of the Court. Therefore, he prayed that the present petition be allowed and the FIR be quashed.

7. Mr. Ajit Sharma, learned Deputy Advocate General, for the respondent-State submitted that the petitioner had transferred money to the customers’ account who transferred it to his account. In this manner, he abused his position as Branch Manager and benefited himself. Therefore, he prayed that the present petition be dismissed.

8. I have given considerable thought to the submissions made at the bar and have gone through the records carefully.

9. The law relating to quashing of FIR was explained by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in B.N. John v. State of U.P., 2025 SCC OnLine SC 7 as under: -

“7. As far as the quashing of criminal cases is concerned,