Back
2022 Supreme(All) 1282
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
SUNEET KUMAR, SYED WAIZ MIAN, JJ.
Piyush Prabhakar and Another – Petitioners
Versus
State of U.P. and Others – Respondents
Criminal Misc. Writ Petition Nos. 9842, 11505, 11664, 11689, 11695, 11704, 12012, 12021, 12025, 12475, 12481, 13003, 13022 of 2020
Decided On : 07-12-2022
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioners: Ravi Prakash Srivastava, Anurag Khanna.
For the Respondent: Gaurav Kakkar.
Headnote:
Constitution of India, 1949 – Articles 226, 227 – Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B, 419, 409, 411 – Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 482, 154 – Power of High Court to issue certain writs – Saving of inherent power of High Court – Information in cognizable cases – Learned Senior Advocate assisted by counsel for petitioners and learned A.G.A. appearing for State – Petitions are being decided by a common judgment and order as they arise from same facts and incident consent of parties – Counsel appearing for fourth respondent has not filed counter affidavit put in appearance – Held, Allegation of complainant that money of his saving bank account was with held and not paid to complainant promptly taking allegation on face value it would not constitute an offence – Purpose of second FIR appears to have been lodged with an ulterior motive to coerce officials of branch to permit complainant to operate saving bank account and withdraw his money – FIR and referred to several judicial precedents and held that High Court should not embark upon an inquiry into merits and demerits of allegations and quash proceedings without allowing investigating agency to complete its task – Court, inter-alia, identified following cases in which FIR/complaint can be quashed – Writ petitions are allowed.
JUDGMENT :
1. Heard Shri Anurag Khanna, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Shri Ravi Prakash Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioners and learned A.G.A. appearing for the State.
2. Petitions are being decided by a common judgment and order as they arise from the same facts and incident on the consent of the parties.
3. Despite notice, counsel appearing for the fourth respondent has not filed counter affidavit, nor, has he put in appearance.
4. Petitioners in the bunch of petitions are the officials of the HDFC Bank Ltd., which include, Managing Director, Additional Managing Director, Company Secretary, Chief Finance Officer and the Branch Manager of the Branch. The complainant is the customer of HDFC bank, having a saving bank account.
5. For the sake of convenience, the facts setforth in the Writ Petition No. 9842 of 2020 (Piyush Prabhakar and Another vs. State of U.P. and Others) is being referred to.
6. HDFC bank is engaged in the business of banking and financial services, duly registered with the Reserve Bank of India, having its registered office at Mumbai (Maharashtra). The bank has various branch all over India, including, the branch at Agra. The complainant/respondent No. 4 is customer of bank having account (Saving Account No. 01211000207684) at the Agra Branch.
7. First petitioner is the Branch Manager, HDFC Bank Ltd. at Agra, since 29.04.2019. It is submitted that the petitioner was not posted at the branch at the relevant point of time i.e. January 2018, during the period when the alleged debit took place from the bank account of the informant.
8. The informant had earlier lodged FIR being Case Crime No. 0083 of 2018, dated 03.02.2018, at Police Station Hariparwat, Agra, against the bank officials and one Dharmendra Singh. It is alleged that the informant in his bank account was having balance at Rs. 1,00,69,633/- as on 17.01.2018. It is alleged that on an enquiry of his bank account on 02.02.2018, it transpired that informant was having balance at Rs. 1,99,574.41 paisa only, thereby, a sum at Rs. 98,70,000/- was fraudulently in connivance with the bank officials was transferred in the account of Dharmendra Singh of the same branch. It is further alleged that the account of the informant was attached by the Income Tax officials, therefore, it was alleged that the amount could not have been withdrawn from the account without connivance of the bank officials. It is informed that the Investigating Officer in the said case crime has filed charge-sheet against six persons on 25.04.2018 under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B, 419 and 411 IPC, including bank officials.
9. The impugned FIR was subsequently lodged by the informant on the same allegations and arising from the same incident, but the only fact that was further alleged is that the saving bank account of the informant was subsequently released by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, vide order dated 18.10.2021, but the bank withheld the amount and has not released it to the informant.
10. In this backdrop, it is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that lodging of the second FIR arising from the same facts and incident is gross misuse of process of the court and would be barred in view of the mandate of T.T. Antony vs. State of Kerala and Others, (2001) 6 SCC 181 which has subsequently been followed in Vijay Kumar Ghai and Others vs. State of West Bengal and Others, (2022) 7 SCC 124 and Tarak Dash Mukharjee and Others vs. State of U.P. and Others, 2022 Live Law (SC) 731.
11. It is further submitted that the entire amount that was due and admissible to the informant has already been released in due course by the bank and a sum at Rs. 1,00,000/- was deducted towards policy excess (Insurance) which the informant is not entitled. It is urged that for this reason the cause to pursue the complainant no longer survives for the complainant.
12. The only question that arises is whether the second FIR arising from the same allegations would be maintainable or not.
