IMPORTANT POINT
The court quashed the criminal proceedings against the bank manager, finding the allegations to be malicious and an abuse of process, emphasizing the principle of double jeopardy.

JUDGMENT :

Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.

Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, learned counsel appearing for the State and learned counsel appearing for the O.P. No.2.

2. The prayer in the petition is made for quashing of the entire criminal proceeding including the order taking cognizance dated 08.02.2017 in connection with Complaint Case No.2733 of 2016 pending in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate, Dhanbad.

3. The complaint case was filed alleging therein that the case has been instituted on the basis of the complaint petition filed by O.P. No.2. The case of the complainant in short is that the complainant is a retired teacher. That the complainant after retirement from the service received her retiral benefits and deposited the said amount in the State Bank of India, Govindpur Branch. It is further stated by the complainant, her son namely Sidharth accused No.1 having association with criminal and he was always hatching the conspiracy to grab the money of the complainant which was deposited in the bank. The wife of accused No.1 Supriya Kumari also assisting him in hatching the conspiracy. It is further stated by the complainant that on 21.09.2016 the accused No.1 with the help of accused No.2 stolen some cheques of complainant and by putting forged signature of the complainant on the cheques tried to withdraw the money from State Bank of India, Govindpur Branch, but when the Branch Manager refused to make the payment, the Accused No.1 went to S.B.I City Branch, Dhanbad and contacted the Branch Manager, Anjani Kumar (the petitioner) and in conspiracy with other accused person transferred the sum of Rs.20 lacs from the complainant account to his account and further transferred Rs.9.5 lacs in the joint account of accused No.1 and 2 and subsequently withdrawn Rs.9,50,000/-on 23.09.2016 from the said account. It is further alleged by the complainant after getting information the complainant approached the SBI City Branch, Dhanbad and requested the Branch Manager to put a hold on the account of the accused No.1 and 2, initially the branch manager not agreed for that but subsequently he put a hold on the account. It is stated that prior to that accused No.1 and 2 has already withdrawn Rs.9,50,000/-from the account. It further stated by the complainant that the accused No.1 by stealing the cheque and putting forged signature misappropriated Rs.20 lacs of the complainant with full illegal consent of accused No.1 and 2. It is stated that when the complainant requested the accused No.3 show the cheque and signature, he refused to show the same. It is further stated that the complainant has given written information to Dhanbad police regarding the incident and police has assured her for proper action, but on 27.09.2016 the complainant went to police station for the information, the police suggested her file the case in the Court.

4. Mr. Ranjan Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was posted as a Branch Manager in the SBI City Branch, Dhanbad. He submits that the allegations are made against the son of the complainant of withdrawing of amount through cheque. He submits that for the same allegation Govindpur P.S. Case No.297 of 2016 was registered in which the police has investigated the matter and submitted the charge sheet and the charge sheet was only submitted against the son of the informant namely Sidharth Kumar in which the cognizance has been taken by the learned Court and the matter is proceeded. He submits that thereafter the present case has been lodged and the petitioner, who is the Branch Manager of SBI have been falsely implicated in the case and the bald allegations are made that with the connivance of the petitioner the amount through cheque was withdrawn. On this ground he submits that the same allegations are made in the present case which amount the double jeopardy.

5. Learned counsel appearing for the State submits that earlier the case was investigated by the polic