A bank is discharged from liability when paying the survivor of a joint account holding an 'either or survivor' clause. Such payment does not constitute criminal misappropriation or breach of trust, and claims by legal heirs against the bank are unsustainable, shifting the remedy toward the survivor.

JUDGMENT

1) By this common judgment, afore-titled two petitions, one filed by Mrs. Shabeena Ibrahim and the other filed Hongkong and Shanghai Banking Corporation Limited, challenging the complaint filed by respondent No.1 against them and against one Mrs. Jehan Habibullah Mir, are proposed to be disposed of.

2) It appears that a criminal complaint alleging commission of offences under Section 420, 405, 406, 463, 464, 465 and 120-B IPC came to be filed by respondent No.1 against the petitioners and Jehan Habibullah Mir before the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Srinagar (for short “the trial Magistrate”). In the complaint it is alleged that the grandfather of the complainant, namely, Habibullah Mir, who has left for heavenly abode, has left behind two sons, namely, Late Mushtaq Ahmad Mir and Rafiq Ahmad Mir and one daughter, namely, Jehan Habibullah (respondent No.2 herein). It has been alleged that late Habibullah Mir and accused Jehan Habibullah were operating several joint accounts and FCD’s in the branch units of the petitioner bank located at New Delhi and Mumbai. The details of the accounts have been given in the impugned complaint. It is alleged that after the death of Habibullah Mir, his legal heirs including the complainant, are entitled to all the movable and immovable property left behind by him, which includes the amounts which were deposited by him in different banks including the petitioner bank.

3) It has been alleged that after the demise of Shri Habibullah Mir, uncle of the complainant, Shri Rafi Ahmad Mir and others, approached the Court of Principal District Judge, Budgam, for grant of succession certificate, which came to be issued on 10.03.2020. It is alleged that the accused persons including the petitioners have fraudulently changed the account numbers, as a result of which the account numbers mentioned in the succession certificate issued by the District Judge, Budgam, did not match with the account numbers maintained with the petitioner bank. The details with regard to changes in the account numbers have been given in para (7) of the impugned complaint. It has been contended that the petitioner bank has changed the ownership of 11 joint accounts contrary to the banking guidelines because as per the guidelines in respect of joint accounts, it is the duty of the bank to inform the other joint account holder. It has been submitted that accused Jehan Habibullah has made a false document by submitting request letter dated 04.02.2009 before the petitioner bank, as a result of which damage and injury has been caused to the complainant.

4) It has been alleged that accused Jehan Habibulla has changed her name to Jehan Habiballa Kidhr Jomir in her Customer ID with the petitioner bank with a view to alter the identity of the bank account. It has been further alleged that the petitioner bank has changed the GBP account numbers thereby changing the complete identity of the accounts. Besides this, accused Jehan Habibullah had diverted the account and deposits and has succeeded in getting the whole money for their own gain.

5) According to the complainant, accused Jehan Habibullah in connivance with the petitioners, has diverted the funds to the tune of Rs.81,77,764.69/ to her unknown accounts. This has happened in December, 2021 and thereafter on 12.01.2022, the accused persons unlawfully transferred an amount of ₹.17,59,274.01/ to accused