JUDGMENT : 

Harpreet Singh Brar, J. (Oral)

The petitioner has approached this Court by way of filing the present petition under Section 482 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter Cr.P.C., for brevity) for quashing of the impugned FIR bearing no. 0017 dated 06.02.2022 under Section 420 of IPC registered at Police Station Mullanpur Garibdass, District SAS Nagar (Annexure P-1), as well as all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom.

2. The facts of the present case, tersely put, are that the petitioner, who was serving as an officer at the Punjab & Sind Bank, Mullanpur Branch, is alleged to have opened a bank account, bearing number 11411000001663 in the name of the complainant-respondent No.2, Neeraj Kumar. Neeraj Kumar is the husband of the petitioner's real sister, Tripti, with whom he is involved in a matrimonial dispute. It is alleged that the petitioner opened the account without Neeraj Kumar's consent and without obtaining his signature on the account opening form. Subsequently, Neeraj Kumar was compelled to transfer Rs. 2,00,000/- to this account by the petitioner and her sister. Furthermore, it has been alleged that the petitioner, without anyone's signature on the bank account receipt, fraudulently transferred an amount of Rs. 1,96,000/- to the account of one Sakshi Dutt for the purpose of procuring a honeymoon package for the complainant and his wife, Tripti. Aggrieved by this, respondent no.2-complainant filed an application before the police in Panchkula, which was transferred to the SSP, SAS Nagar. After a detailed enquiry, the impugned FIR was registered against the petitioner-accused under Section 420 of IPC.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner inter alia contends that although the petitioner herself filled in all the particulars to open the bank account of the complainant, she did so with his full knowledge and consent. Therefore, the ingredient of fraudulent intention or deception is clearly missing in the present case. Moreover, when the petitioner transferred Rs. 1,96,000/- from the bank account of the complainant to the travel agent, the complainant received SMS notifications from the bank on his mobile number, indicating that the petitioner had linked the mobile number of the complainant to his bank account. This clearly shows that the petitioner had no dishonest intention on her part. Also, the complainant transferred Rs. 2,00,000/- in the said bank account of his own volition. Additionally, the complainant did not raise any objections when the aforesaid amount was withdrawn and the complainant received the transaction notifications. Learned counsel further argues that the impugned FIR is simply a counter-blast to the FIR bearing No. 198 dated 17.05.2021 registered under Sections 323, 34, 406, 498-A, 506 of IPC (Annexure P-4) which was lodged by the wife of the complainant. Lastly, it is averred that by making the said transaction there was neither any wrongful gain to the petitioner since she did not use the money for herself nor any wrongful loss occurred to the complainant as he availed the honeymoon package for himself. Reliance in this regard was placed on the judgments rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in 'Archana Rana vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and another' 2021(3) SCC 751, 'Prof. RK. Vijayasarathy vs. Sudha Seetharam' 2019(16) SCC 739, 'Vijay Kumar Ghai and others vs. The State of West Bengal and others' 2022(7) SCC 124 and 'Anupriya Pal vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh' 2019 (4) SCC 643.

4. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent no.2-complainant submits that the very act of opening the savings bank account of the complainant, without obtaining his consent, by the petitioner in conspiracy with her sister clearly amounts to forgery and fabrication of the official records of the bank by misuse of the authority vested with the petitioner. The withdrawal of Rs. 1,96,000/- was clearly without the permission of the complainant. This is clear from the fact that the complainant neither signed any