IMPORTANT POINT
The central legal principle established in the judgment is that disputes of a civil nature, such as non-encashment of a mutual fund, should be addressed through consumer fora rather than criminal proceedings. Additionally, the judgment emphasizes the importance of distinguishing between civil and criminal matters and the need to prevent malicious filing of cases against parties.

JUDGMENT :

In both the petitions common question of law and similar complaint as well as cognizance order are under challenge that is why both the petitions are being heard together with the consent of the parties.

2. Inspite of valid service of notice, O.P. No.2 has not appeared. On 20.12.2022, the matter was adjourned with a view to provide one more opportunity to the O.P. No.2. Thereafter the matter was adjourned on 03.02.2023 and 21.11.2023. Today, again on repeated calls, nobody responded on behalf of the O.P. No.2. Accordingly, the matters are being heard in absence of the O.P. No.2.

3. Heard Mr. Rajiv N. Prasad learned counsel for the petitioners in both the cases and Mrs. Sushma Aind and Mr. Rajneesh Vardhan, learned counsels for the State in respective cases.

4. Both the petitions have been filed for quashing the entire criminal proceeding including the order taking cognizance dated 13.01.2016 passed in connection with Complaint Case No. 1208 of 2015, pending in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Dhanbad.

5. O.P. No.2 has filed the complaint against Bank of India, its Managing Director and one Mahesh Kumar Advani alleging therein that the complainant's father Bhuneshwar Prasad Gupta (deceased) in the year 1990 invested Rs.50,000/- in B.O.I. Mutual Fund on the inducement of accused no.1 mentioning the name of witness no.1 as joint depositor and accordingly was allotted 500 units bearing nos. 22119061 to 22119560 vide certificate no.02510890. Bhuneshwar Prasad Gupta died on 07.02.1999 and after his death witness no.1 approached the accused no.1 at his Manaitand Branch, Dhanbad for encashing the value of the deposits made in May, 1999 and deposited the original papers, like the death certificate etc. through its another representative, namely DATAMATICS LTD., Marol, Andheri (E) Mumbai and also sent original Bond paper, application form to him through speed post on 27.05.1999. But inspite of sending several applications for getting the payment including application under R.T.I. Act no reply was given. Ultimately, on 02.12.2014 the witness no.1 sent a legal notice to the Managing Director of accused no.1. Then accused replied hurriedly on 14/19.01.2015 that accused no.3 had withdrew the entire amount in the year 2000. Accordingly the present complaint petition has been filed with the aforesaid allegations.

6. Mr. Rajiv N. Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioner in Cr.M.P. No.261 of 2016 is Bank of India and petitioner in Cr.M.P. No. 444 of 2016 is Managing Director of Bank of India at that time posted at Mumbai. He submits that the complaint was itself bad in law in view of the fact that allegations are not against any particular accused person rather against the post. He submits that the allegations are with regard to non encashment of mutual fund in 1990 wherein the present complaint has been filed in the year, 2015 after more than 14 years inspite of that learned court has taken cognizance. He submits that the said mutual fund was already transferred by the mother of the complainant in favour of Anoj Kumar Singh in the year, 1999 itself and the said Anoj Kumar Singh transferred the same in favour of one Mahesh Kumar Advani. On these grounds, he submits that entire criminal proceeding may be quashed.

7. Learned counsel for the State submits that on the complaint petition, learned court has taken cognizance.

8. In view of above submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, it appears that the dispute is with regard to non encashment of mutual fund. It has been stated that the said mutual fund has already been transferred in the name of one Anoj Kumar Singh who also transferred the same to Mr. Mahesh Kumar Advani and the said Mahesh Kumar Advani has already encashed the amount which has been disclosed in para 9 of the complaint petition. It appears that the petitioners are not named accused. Only Managing Director and Bank of India have been made accused as 1, 1A and II. Ther