The main legal point established in the judgment is that the agreement between the parties regarding the repairing work of the joint property indicated no criminal intent, leading to the quashing of the criminal proceeding.

JUDGMENT :

1. In both the petitions common question of law and cognizance order are under challenge that is why both the petitions have been heard together with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties.

2. Heard Mr. Rohan Mazumdar, learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Tapas Roy and Mr. Ravi Prakash, learned counsels for the State and Mr. Devnandan Rajak, learned counsel for the O.P. No.2.

3. Both the petitions have been filed for quashing of entire criminal proceeding including order dated 10.08.2009 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Deoghar in P.C.R. Case No. 919 of 2007 whereby cognizance has been taken under sections 406, 420 of the I.P.C., pending in the Court of learned S.D.J.M. at Deoghar.

4. The complaint petition has been filed alleging therein that complainant and his other co-sharers have given their building on rent of Rs. 3,370/- per month to the Branch Manager, S.B.I. Branch, Sarwan District. The said Branch is being run from the year 1985. As per the agreement, the rent of the above building is being deposited in joint savings Account No. 01150060047.

5. It was also agreed upon between the parties that any amount from the above account shall be withdrawn with consent and signatures of all the co-sharers i.e. the complainant and accused nos. 3 and 5. This norms was followed. All the above accused persons made criminal conspiracy to grab illegally and immorally amount of the above account. So, on the aforesaid date and time of occurrence the accused persons named above withdrew Rs. 13,708/- and Rs. 15,594/- without the consent and signature of the complainant and misappropriated the said amount. The accused persons withdrew the above amount by practicing fraud and forging and fabricating the documents concerned. The complainant got knowledge regarding the above fraud on 05.11.2007 so he sent an application to the present Branch Manager, demanding regarding the statement of accounts. The present Branch Manager supplied the statement of accounts to the complainant on 13.11.2007. The complainant has been highly prejudiced by the fraudulent act of the accused persons. After perfect knowledge regarding the statements of accounts, the complainant was to lodge the F.I.R. at the Sarwan P.S on 13.11.2007 itself but the accused persons assured to settle the matter but seeing the conduct of the accused persons, the complainant came to conclusion that they simply wanted to hush up the case. Hence, the complaint was filed.

6. Mr. Rohan Mazumdar, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the property in question was joint property which was provided on rent to the State Bank of India, Sarwan Branch and the amount was deposited in joint account of the parties. He submits that the complainant is the brother of petitioners in Cr.M.P. No. 178 of 2010 and petitioners in Cr.M.P. No. 177 of 2010 are branch manager. He further submits that the State Bank of India requested the petitioners in Cr.M.P. No. 178 of 2010 as well as O.P. No.2 that building may be repaired vide letter dated 27.09.2003. He further submits that the bank came up with the proposal that the building will be repaired and the amount will be deducted from the joint savings bank account of the petitioners and the complainant. He submits that the petitioners and the complainant agreed to that proposal and for that there was agreement between the petitioners and the complainant recorded in letter dated 11.10.2003 vide annexure-3 to the petition. He submits that amount of Rs. 13,708/ and Rs. 15,594/- alleged to be wrongly withdrawn without the consent of the complainant is incorrect and the same has been paid by the banker’s cheque to petitioner no.2 by petitioner no. 1 in Cr.M.P. No. 177 of 2010 which is evident from banker’s cheque dated 20.07.2007 as agreed by the parties. He submits that in that view of the matter entire criminal proceeding may be quashed.

7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the O.P. No.2 learned A.P.P. appearing on b