In a criminal writ petition, the High Court dismissed the petitioner's plea to quash an FIR alleging criminal breach of trust and violation of subsidy scheme directions, holding that appearance of violation requires further investigation to determine dishonest intent.
Petition dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to apply for bail.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 33
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 11876 of 2019
Petitioner :- Apoorv Dixit Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Sarvesh Kumar Dubey Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Ashok Kumar Lal
Hon'ble Manoj Misra,J. Hon'ble Suresh Kumar Gupta,J.
Heard Sri Anoop Trivedi, learned counsel for the petitioner; Sri Deepak Mishra, learned A.G.A. for the State-respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3; Sri Ashok Kumar Lal, for Respondent No.4; and perused the record.
The instant petition seeks quashing of the FIR dated 3.9.2018 registered as Case Crime No. 851 of 2018, under Section 409 I.P.C., at Police Station Kotwali City, District Bijnor.
The impugned F.I.R. has been lodged against 18 persons including the petitioner who, at the relevant time, was a Branch Manager, District Cooperative Bank. As per allegations, a scheme was floated for the purpose of generating self employment. As per which loan was to be provided by the bank. All loan accounts were also entitled to certain amount of subsidy which was to be provided by the U.P. Scheduled Castes Finance and Development Corporation Ltd, Bijnor (for short 'Nigam'). It is alleged that the subsidy portion of the amount was transferred to the loan accounts and was allowed to be withdrawn, without crediting the loan amount. The allegation is that by doing such an act, the bank officials violated the terms and conditions of the entire scheme and they have allowed disbursement of only subsidy amount to the tune of Rs. 173.80 lacs in collusion with the borrowers and, therefore, they are guilty of commission of offence of criminal breach of trust.
The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that there had been no misappropriation of funds. The amount that was provided by the Nigam was in any way to be disbursed to the loan applicants and, therefore, if the said amount has been disbursed to the loan applicants without transfer of loan amount into the loan account of the applicants, it cannot be said that the bank officials had misappropriated the funds or had acted in any manner which may suggest dishonest intention on their part.
Whether the intention of the petitioner had been dishonest or not would depend upon the material collected during the course of investigation. What appears, prima facie, is that the amount
that was provided by the Nigam was to be applied by way of subsidy in to the loan amount provided by the banks and the total amount had to be released to the loan account holders so that the purpose of the scheme could be served. But, what has been done is that the subsidy portion of the amount alone has been transferred to the account of the loan applicants and the remaining amount was not disbursed, therefore there was apparent violation of the directions provided in the scheme.
Section 405 of the Indian Penal Code defines the offence of criminal breach of trust. It provides that whoever, being in any manner entrusted with property, or with any dominion over property, dishonestly misappropriates or converts to his own use that property, or dishonestly uses or disposes of that property in violation of any direction of law prescribing the mode in which such trust is to be discharged, or of any legal contract, express or implied, which he has made touching the discharge of such trust, or wilfully suffers any other person so to do, commits "criminal breach of trust."
In the case at hand, we find that there was specific mode provided for use of the subsidy amount, which has not been followed by the bank officials, as alleged.
Under the circumstances, it cannot be said that the impugned FIR does not make out prima facie case for investigation. As to whether the petitioner had dishonest intention or not would depend upon material collected during the course of investigation. But, that, by itself, cannot be a ground to quash the FIR. The petition is dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to apply for bail.
Order Date :- 20.5.2019 Manish Tripathi
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the impugned FIR makes out a prima facie case for investigation regarding alleged criminal breach of trust.
Whether appearing violation of scheme directions alone establishes dishonest intention sufficient to quash the FIR.
2 provisions across 1 enactments
Apoorv Dixit
State Of U.P.
District Cooperative Bank
U.P. Scheduled Castes Finance and Development Corporation Ltd
Manoj Misra
Suresh Kumar Gupta
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
