The main legal point established in the judgment is that the court can quash criminal proceedings if the material relied upon by the accused rules out the assertions contained in the charges, and if proceeding with the trial would result in an abuse of the process of the court and not serve the ends of justice.

JUDGMENT :

Heard Mr. Rajesh Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, Mr. Bishambhar Shastri, Mrs. Ruby Pandey and Mr. Shiv Shankar Kumar, learned A.P.Ps. for the State and Mr. Pawan Kumar Pathak, learned counsel appearing for the O.P. No. 2 in respective cases.

2. In Cr.M.P. Nos. 1519 of 2009 and 627 of 2013, the prayer has been made for quashing of the entire criminal proceedings including the order taking cognizance dated 17.06.2009, by which, cognizance for the offences under Sections 380, 409 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code has been taken against the petitioners, in connection with Complaint Case No. 1159 of 2006, pending in the court of learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Ranchi.

3. In Cr.M.P. No. 1078 of 2013, prayer has been made for quashing of the entire criminal proceedings including the order dated 24.01.2013, whereby, a petition filed under Section 245 Cr.P.C. for discharge was rejected, in connection with Complaint Case No. 1159 of 2006, pending in the court of learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Ranchi.

4. The learned court has been pleased to take cognizance pursuant to the protest-cum-complaint petition, wherein it has been alleged that the complainant along with his wife namely Smt. Kala Srivastava are the joint lessee of Locker No. 177 leased out by Punjab National Bank, Main Road, Ranchi. The complainant has operated his locker before the occurrence last time on 22.02.2002 and kept some gold articles inside the locker and again on the day of occurrence i.e. 9.06.2003 the complainant along with his son and daughter-in-law went to operate the said locker after opening the same he found the gold articles which were kept in the small box inside the locker were missing and he immediately informed the same to the then Locker In-charge Shri R.K. Sharan but he did not give any satisfactory reply and accordingly the same was informed to the then Branch Manager Shri Sanjay Sahay also and found that the locker could be easily opened then thereafter the same was reported to the local Police i.e. Lower Bazar, Ranchi and accordingly an F.I.R. was lodged which was registered as Lower Bazar P.S. Case No. 71/2003. The Police filed the Final Form on 15.03.2006 with no clue under Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code. Thereafter complainant also filed a complaint-cum-protest petition and in the said protest-cum-complaint petition after enquiry the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Ranchi vide its Order dated 17.06.2009 has taken cognizance under Section 380/409/34 of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioners / accused along with other 5 co-accused.

5. Mr. Rajesh Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are the officers of the Punjab National Bank, Main Road Branch, Ranchi. He submits that for the grievance of the petitioners Lower Bazar P.S. Case No. 71 of 2003 was registered and the same was investigated by the police, however, the theft was said to be proved, but the police has not sent up the petitioners for trial. He further submits that on the protest petition, the learned court has taken the cognizance. He further submits that for the said occurrence, O.P. No. 2 has already preferred a Title Suit No. 246 of 2006, which is still pending before the court of learned Sub-Ordinate Judge at Ranchi. He further submits that the theft has occurred, but there is no material against the petitioners to put them accused, who are the Bank officials and in view of that the police has not sent up them for trial. He submits that if any case is made out, that is civil in nature and for that the O.P. No. 2 has already preferred a title suit. He further submits that the allegations are made that the ornaments were missing from the locker of the O.P. No. 2. He further submits that police has investigated the matter and has categorially stated that in the locker whatever ornaments / amount is taken out from the locker is only known to the locker owner and his relatives and