Back
Subsequent Posting Can't Create : Quashes Case Against Bank Officials
The has quashed criminal proceedings against two senior bank officials, ruling that for transactions that occurred before they joined the branch. Justice Chandra Shekhar Jha held that under the .
A Question of Timing
The case arose from a complaint by Sunil Kumar, proprietor of , who alleged that on , the then Branch Manager of 's Ara branch fraudulently transferred approximately ₹58 lakhs from his accounts and his brother's using blank cheques obtained on false pretext. The police registered FIR No.292/2015 and eventually filed a charge-sheet naming Braj Gopal Sandhibigraha and Vishwaroop Roy, who had subsequently been posted as Regional Manager and Senior Manager respectively, along with other accused.
The petitioners approached the High Court under , arguing that they were not posted at the Ara branch on the date of the alleged occurrence. Petitioner No.1 was at Rajkot and joined the Regional Office, Patna only on ; Petitioner No.2 was at Chapra and joined even later on . The complainant's own case fixed the transaction date as .
Arguments: vs. Specific Role
, appearing for the petitioners, contended that the allegations disclosed no specific role for either petitioner. He highlighted that Petitioner No.1, upon learning of financial irregularities in an audit, himself lodged a complaint with the , leading to registration of / Case No.6/2015 on . This conduct, he argued, was wholly inconsistent with a .
Opposite Party No.2 countered that the charge-sheet and order of cognizance disclosed sufficient grounds, and that the petitioners' roles could be established during trial. They urged the court not to conduct a at this stage.
Legal Analysis: Precedents on
The court examined the essential ingredients of . Relying on the 's decision in
Dr. Anil Khandelwal & Ors. v. Phoenix India & Anr.
(2025 SCC OnLine SC 1883), Justice Jha noted that
under the IPC cannot be fastened on officers merely by invoking
on account of their official position. The judgment emphasized the need for
"
indicating the precise role of the officer."
The court also referred to HDFC Bank Ltd. v. State of Bihar & Ors. (2024 SCC OnLine SC 2995), which reiterated that requires , and requires followed by . In this case, neither petitioner had or dominion over the complainant's property at the relevant time.
The principle from Delhi Race Club (1940) Ltd. & Ors. v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. (2024 SCC OnLine SC 2248) was also applied, holding that is a serious matter and the magistrate must apply mind to the material.
Key Observations
The court made several pivotal observations:
"The allegation of conspiracy also cannot be sustained merely by referring to the official designation subsequently held by the petitioners… The fact that a person subsequently occupies an office connected with the institution in which the alleged transaction had earlier taken place, by itself, cannot furnish the necessary foundation for such an inference."
"Their in an occurrence which, on the prosecution's own showing, had already taken place."
"The conduct of petitioner no.1, after joining the concerned office, deserves particular consideration. Instead of suppressing the irregularities, the record shows that he brought the matter before the and thereby facilitated an investigation into the very financial irregularities which form the subject matter of the present prosecution."
Court's Decision
Finding that the allegations, even taken at face value, did not disclose the essential ingredients of the offences against the petitioners, the High Court quashed the dated , and all consequential proceedings in Nawada P.S. Case No.292/2015. The court allowed the criminal miscellaneous application, emphasizing that continuing the prosecution would amount to an .
The ruling underscores that bank officials cannot be automatically prosecuted for pre-posting transactions merely because of their subsequent designations, and that investigating agencies must demonstrate .
