IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI, J.
Branch Manager, ICICI Home Finance Co. Limited – Appellant
Versus
The State of Jharkhand – Respondent
Cr.M.P. No. 1366 of 2010
Decided on : 22-03-2023
Criminal Proceeding - Quashing - Indian Penal Code - Section 420
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner filed a petition to quash the criminal proceeding against them under section 420 of the Indian Penal Code, alleging that the original documents were not returned by the bank after obtaining legal opinion.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the order taking cognizance against the bank, without specifying the Branch Manager who committed the offense, was not in accordance with the law.
Issues: The main issue was whether the order taking cognizance against the bank without specifying the individual responsible was valid.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the order taking cognizance against the post of Branch Manager, without specifying the individual, was not in accordance with the law.
Final Decision: The order taking cognizance dated 18.02.2010 was set aside and the matter was remitted back to the concerned court to pass a fresh order in accordance with the law.
JUDGMENT :
Notice upon the O.P. No. 2 has been effected. On 11.08.2022 the matter was adjourned by way of last opportunity to the O.P. No. 2. However, today on repeated calls, nobody appeared on behalf of the O.P. No. 2 and in that view of the matter this case is heard on merit.
2. Heard Mr. Anish Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Pankaj Kr. Mishra, learned counsel for the State.
3. This criminal miscellaneous petition has been filed for quashing of entire criminal proceeding including order taking cognizance dated 18.02.2010 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Dhanbad in connection with C.P. Case No. 1143 of 2007 against the petitioner under section 420 of the Indian Penal Code pending in that Court.
4. The complaint was filed alleging therein that the complainant is a nominated and constituted power of attorney holder Pravina Khan and Safina Khan, both daughter of late Imamul Hai Khan, resident of Loharkulhi, P.O. and P.S. Saraidhela, District-Dhanabd to look after and manage their properties. It was alleged that the aforesaid ladies, late Imamul Hai Khan gifted 35 decimals of land along with house situated over plot no. 2089 under khata no. 144 an 104 of mouza Sariadhela, No. 8, by registered deed of Gift No. 3843 dated 19.12.1983. Both the ladies thereafter mutated their names in the Sherista of the State of Bihar, vide Mutation Case No. 12 (II) Saraidhela/1984-85 and paying rent under Khata No. 1174 to the State of Bihar (Now State of Jharkhand. One S.M. Mansoor Mozaffar, son of S.M. Izharul Hasan wanted to purchase the part of the aforesaid land belonging to the Pravina Khan and Safina Khan and entered into an agreement of sale on 16.08.2003 for purchasing 2 and ½ kathas along with house situated thereon. On the request of the said purchaser, the aforesaid two ladies sent the complainant as their representatives with S.M. Mansoor Muzaffar with their original documents to the petitioner who is Branch Manager, who took the original documents/papers from the complainant and asked the complainant that the aforesaid documents are being sent to their advocates for opinion and assured the complainant that the original documents shall be returned after obtaining the legal opinion and on belonging the version of petitioner to be true, the complainant left the aforesaid documents with the petitioner. It was alleged that even after repeated request and demand made by the complainant, the accused persons did not return the original documents after taking the legal opinion from their advocate, the present case has been filed
5. Mr. Anish Kumar Mishra, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the complainant is a nominated and constituted power of attorney holder of Pravina Khan and Safina Khan, both daughter of late Imamul Hai Khan. He further submits that the said purchaser S.M. Mansoor Muzaffar applied for housing loan to the accused persons Bank i.e. ICICI Home Finance, Shastri Nagar, Bank More Branch, Dhanabd and it has been alleged that petitioner being the Branch Manager of the said bank asked S.M. Mansoor Muzaffar to bring all the original documents for verification and for obtaining legal opinion in the matter before sanctioning the loan. It was alleged that even after repeated request and demand made by the complainant, the accused persons did not return the original documents after taking the legal opinion from their advocate, the present case has been filed.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the Branch Manager of ICICI Bank Limited, Shastri Nagar, (East), Bank More, P.O. and P.S. Dhanbad has been made accused, however, the name of the Branch Manager who has committed the offence has not been mentioned. He submits that in the criminal case the cognizance is required to be taken against the person and not against the post. According to him the post of Branch Manager is a post successor in interest and without particular Branch Manager who has commit
AI
The court emphasized the importance of specifying the individual responsible when taking cognizance in criminal proceedings.
Criminal proceedings should not be used to settle civil disputes, and allowing such proceedings to continue when they amount to an abuse of process of law.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the case of cheating and forgery must be supported by evidence, and if there is any dispute with regard to the land in question, it should be ....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the absence of evidence to show the commission of an offence, coupled with the similarity of allegations against co-accused whose charges had ....
The lack of new materials to justify taking cognizance after previously dismissing a complaint petition rendered the entire criminal proceeding invalid as far as the petitioner was concerned.
Bona fide purchasers cannot be implicated in forgery or fraud where they have no part in wrongdoing, and prior allegations point to their victimization.
A cognizance order can be quashed if the allegations do not establish a prima facie case against the accused, particularly when the accused's involvement is based solely on vicarious liability withou....
Purpose of 482 Cr.P.C. is inherent power i.e. to secure ends of justice, preventing abuse of process.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.