Back
2022 Supreme(UK) 190
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
RAVINDRA MAITHANI, J.
I.G. Alexander and others – Appellants
Versus
State of Uttarakhand and others - Respondents
Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 1755, 1785 of 2019
Decided on : 12-10-2022
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :Mr. R. Basant, assisted by Mr. L.K. Tiwari, Advocate
For the Respondent:Mr. Lalit Miglani, Mr. Navneet Kaushik, Advocate
The main legal point established is that extensive investigation by a competent authority and the nature of the alleged offences are crucial factors in determining whether a FIR should be quashed.
Headnote:
FIR Quashing - Dispute between Informant and South Indian Bank - IPC 420, 467, 468, 471 - RBI Guidelines, CBI Investigation, Quashing of FIR
Fact of the Case:
The dispute arises from an FIR filed by the informant alleging forgery and embezzlement by the South Indian Bank. The petitioners sought to quash the FIR, arguing that the issue had already been decided by the court in earlier petitions. The informant argued against quashing the FIR, citing CBI investigation and pending Supreme Court proceedings.
Finding of the Court:
The Court found that the allegations in the FIR had already been extensively investigated by the CBI and that no prima facie offence was made out regarding the entries in the account. Therefore, the Court quashed the FIR.
Issues: The main issue was whether the FIR disclosed any offence, considering the previous CBI investigation and the entries in the account.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court relied on the previous CBI investigation and the nature of the entries in the account to determine that no prima facie offence was made out, leading to the quashing of the FIR.
Final Decision: The petitions were allowed, and the FIR under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC was quashed.
JUDGMENT :
Since one and the same FIR is sought to be quashed by means of these petitions, they are being decided by this common judgment.
2. The petitioners seek quashing of the FIR No. 180 of 2019 (“the FIR”), dated 11.09.2019, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC, Police Station Dalanwalan, District Dehradun with related reliefs.
3. Facts necessary to appreciate the controversy are as follows:-
The FIR in question has been lodged by the respondent no.3 Vijay Kumar Kushwaha (“the informant”). According to it, the informant has some dispute with a South Indian Bank (“the SIB”). In the meanwhile, according to the FIR, the owner and officers of the SIB opened a forged Account No. 0471658000000009 (“the account”) in the name of the informant and embezzled Rs. 243611815/-. The FIR also records that a transaction of Rs.92723059.45 was made in the account on 23.05.2016 and again another entry of same amount was made in the account on 25.10.2018. The FIR is quite in detail with regard to these transactions and it records that the owners and the officers of the SIB have not been working as per the guidelines and committing forgery.
4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
5. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that the FIR is baseless and vexatious with an intention to keep the issue alive. It is argued that the issue has already been decided by this Court on 04.06.2019, while deciding the Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 527 of 2016, Vijay Kumar Kushwaha Vs. Secretary Home, State and Others and connected matters (“the petitions”). It is argued that earlier also the informant had filed an FIR No. 667 of 2019, which was quashed by the order dated 14.06.2019, passed by this Court in the petitions. Learned Senior Counsel raised the following points as well:-
(i) In the earlier FIR No. 667 of 2015, the informant had alleged that his three bank accounts were forged by the officers of the SIB, which includes the present account.
(ii) The account-in-question is suit filed account.
(iii) The issue had already attained finality in the petitions decided by this Court earlier.
(iv) The entries, which were made on 23.05.2016, in the account were in accordance with the Reserve Bank of India (“the RBI”) guidelines.
(v) Although, the entries were made in the account on 23.05.2016, as per RBI guidelines, but there were some difficulties in the implementation. Therefore, SIB further laid down certain guidelines on 13.09.2018, by which the entries were reversed.
(vi) On 23.05.2016 and 25.10.2018, two entries were made in the account, but the effect is zero. By virtue of entry dated 25.10.2018, an earlier entry dated 23.05.2016 was neutralized. It has been done as per guidelines.
6. Learned Senior Counsel would submit that the FIR deserves to be quashed. It does not make out any offence. It is baseless and vexatious.
7. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondent no.3 would submit that the account was not suit filed account because the SIB had filed OA before Debt Recovery Tribunal, Dehradun (“DRT”) and till then, the account was not opened. The learned counsel also raised the following points in his arguments:-
(i) The CBI in the earlier charge sheet had recorded that the account was opened for the purpose of filing of recovery suit in DRT and CBI in its charge sheet has also recorded, “No operation was allowed in this account, no signature of customer is required for opening this account.” It is argued that if it is so, why the entries were made on 23.05.2016 and 25.10.2018?
(ii) Suit filed account is opened, when loan is advanced. Instant is not such a case. It is not the case of SIB that any loan was advanced.
(iii) CBI could not have investigated, the transactions dated 23.05.2016 and 25.10.2018 because it had already filed charge sheet in the year 2017.
(iv) The entries in the account, the informant apprehends, has been made with some ulterior motives to cause loss to the informant.
(v) Once th
