Dismissed

Kuladhar Deka v. the State of Assam and Anr.

Gauhati HC1 Aug 2019Crl.Pet./983/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged a chargesheet under Section 482 CrPC alleging misappropriation of funds via an association bank. The bench rejected claims of innocence and insufficient evidence, finding prima facie case materials sufficient to proceed with trial.

What did the court decide?

The petition quashing the charge sheet and proceedings was dismissed. The case is to proceed with trial.

Kuladhar Deka Vs the State of Assam and Anr. — Cheque Dishonour | Gauhati HC (2019)

¶1

Page No.# 1/4

¶2

GAHC010215312018

¶3

THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)

¶4

Case No. : Crl.Pet. 983/2018

¶5

1:KULADHAR DEKA

¶6

S/O- SRI BUDHEN DEKA, R/O- ANIL NAGAR, BYE LANE NO. 3 OFF RAJGARH ROAD, GHY- 7, P.S. GITANAGAR,, DIST- KAMRUP (M), ASSAM

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

1:THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR. REP. BY P.P., ASSAM

¶9

2:SRI BHABANANDA RAY SECY. OF COMMUNIST PARTY INDIA (MARXIST) RANGAPARA LOCAL COMMITTEE DIST- SONITPUR ASSA

¶10

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. B D GOSWAMI

¶11

Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM

¶12

BEFORE

¶13

HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE RUMI KUMARI PHUKAN

¶14

Date of Hearing and Judgment : 01.08.2019.

¶15

JUDGMENT AND ORDER(CAV)

¶16

Heard Mr. B. D. Goswami, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. B. B. Gogoi, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent No.1.

¶17

Page No.# 2/4

¶18

This petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. praying for quashing the Charge Sheet No.08/2015 dated 31.03.2018 submitted in connection with Rangapara P.S. 106/2007 under Sections 409/420 of IPC corresponding to GR Case No.983/2007 and the proceeding therein so far relates to the petitioner pending before the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sonitpur, Tezpur, Assam.

¶19

The brief fact of the case of the petitioner is that on 08.06.2007, one Sri Bhabananda Ray, Secretary of Communist Party India (Marxist), Rangapara Local Committee filed an ejahar before the Officer-in-charge, Rangapara Police Station against the petitioner and others alleging that the petitioner and other Managers of ASCARD Bank, Rangapara Branch along with the Bank Staff and many others collectively induced the people of Rangapara area and by cheating and compelled them to open accounts with the ASCARD Bank, Rangapara Branch. It is stated that under their influence, about 4/5 thousand people opened their accounts in the said Rangapara Branch of ASCAD Bank and deposited thousands of rupees and thereafter the Bank authority locked up the Bank on 31^st March, 2006 and fled away from Rangapara. It is further stated that in order to take action against the Bank authority a general meeting of the account holders of ASCARD Bank, Rangapara Branch was held at Rangapara Namghar under the Presidentship of Md. Shahjahan Ansari on 29^th May, 2007 where more than 500 account holders were present. In the meeting, the subscribers unanimously entrusted the responsibility on the local Committee of Communist Party (Marxist) to take appropriate action against the cheaters. Thereafter, on behalf of more than thousand subscribers, the ejahar was filed by the Rangapara Committee of Communist Party (Marxist) to take action against the deceitful authority of the ASCARD bank, Rangapara Branch.

¶20

Upon receipt of the FIR, the Officer-in-charge, Rangapara Police Station registered a case bearing Rangapara P.S. Case No.106/2007 under Sections 409/420 of IPC (corresponding to GR Case No.983/2007) and after due investigation submitted charge sheet against the present accused/petitioner and others under Sections 409/420 IPC. The learned trial court took cognizance on the basis of the charge sheet and issue process against the accused persons including the petitioner. Challenging the charge sheet and the entire proceeding present petition has been preferred for quashing of entire proceeding.

¶21

According to the petitioner he is completely innocent and has not committed any offence whatsoever as alleged in the FIR. It is stated that the level of allegation made in the ejahar has not been brought by the aggrieved members of the ASCARD Bank nor any victims and the informant is a Secretary of Communist Party India (Marxist), Rangapara Local Committee and filed only to gain

¶22

Page No.# 3/4

¶23

political mileage by exaggerating the actual fact. It contends that no prima-facie case is made out against the accused/petitioner whereas the petitioner was not serving at Rangapara Branch of ASCARD Bank Ltd. at the time of incident and the petitioner is not responsible for any omission and commission of the bank. In fact, the matter of restructuring of ASCARD Bank Ltd. (deposit wing) was carried out in terms of the High Court’s Order in PIL 2454/1995 the petitioner was designated as a Senior Executive Officer of the Interim Board of Management constituted for interim management of the Bank in the year 2001. In terms of the order passed by the Chief Executive Officer of Interim Board Management (20.01.2001) petitioner handed over the charge to the next senior and joined at Guwahati since then. It has been contended that without proper enquiry by the Investigating Officer all about the status or complicity of the petitioner, charge sheet has been filed.

¶24

The learned counsel for the petitioner Mr. Goswami has referred and relied certain documents annexed with the petition in support of the contention raised in the petition that the petitioner was one of the members of the Committee to manage the affairs of the bank vide Annexure-6 dated 08.01.2001, that he was directed to handover charge in the Office of Maligaon and he joined accordingly at Maligaon on 20.01.2001. Vide Annexure-7, Annexure-8 and Annexure-9 is the order of Gauhati High Court in PIL 2454/1995.

¶25

Submission of the learned counsel which is based on the contention raised in the petition is heard and considered.

¶26

Heard Mr. B. B. Gogoi, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, who after going through the record as well as the case diary has submitted that materials and the evidence so far collected during investigation is sufficient to proceed with the trial, there being prima-facie materials against the petitioner.

¶27

Due consideration is given to the submission of both the parties. Perused the case diary. From the statement of various account holders it reveals that the various amount deposited by the account holders was not returned to them despite the maturity period is over and such amount was collected by the bank collector. The bank officials instead of returning the due to the customers locked the bank, hide themselves from the locality, and thereby cheated them. The investigation reveals that the present petitioner was associated with the scandal of misappropriation of money of the ASCARD bank along with the earlier Bank Manager Paramjit Singh. It was found that these bank officials induced the customers to open the accounts and subsequently all of them misappropriated the public money and finally the officials locked the bank. The witnesses also reveal that the present accused/petitioner at first, opened the bank fraudulently and became the Manager and thereafter by opening different

¶28

Page No.# 4/4

¶29

branches at different places, he left for Guwahati and by making conspiracy one Paramjit Singh was made the Manager and despite huge demand of the customers they did not return the money to them. In the given circumstances complicity of the present petitioner is made out for taking cognizance of the offence. The present petitioner cannot be exonerated at this stage only on the basis of the certain documents that he was not present at the place of incident, as the authenticity of those documents is yet to prove, which is subject matter of trial.

¶30

Further, the order passed in PIL also reveals the clumsy affair of the aforesaid ASCARD Bank. The relevant portion of the order passed in PIL No.2454/1995 is quoted below:

¶31

“The affairs of the ASCARD Bank (deposit wing) wear a rough weather for mismanagement and various other reasons. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, this Court in order to revive the institution, by the order dated 20^th December, 2000 constituted an Interim Board of Management for running the affairs of the institution. By now the Interim Board of Management have been to a large extent successful in reviving the institution …”

¶32

It is worth mentioning that the petitioner was a Manager of the Bank who opened the Bank and run the same and having regard to the allegation and the materials collected during the course of investigation is sufficient to make out a prima-facie case for taking cognizance. It is not a fit case for invoking the provision of 482 Cr.P.C. Law is settled that such an extra-ordinary jurisdiction under the provision can be exercised only to prevent the abuse of process of law or otherwise to secure ends of justice so that innocent persons are not unnecessarily harassed by dragging into criminal proceeding. In the instant case, there is nothing to show that the accused petitioner is an innocent person having no criminal liability. The accused is at liberty to prove his innocence only in course of trial in appropriate manner.

¶33

The petition is accordingly dismissed.

¶34

Return the case diary.

¶35

JUDGE

¶36

Comparing Assistant

Kuladhar Deka v. the State of Assam and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kuladhar Deka v. the State of Assam and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Alom Mondal @ Alam Mondal and Anr. Vs the State of Assam and Anr.

Pankaj Kumar Das and Anr. Vs the State of Assam and Anr.

Rakib Ahmed @ Rakibuddin Ahmed Vs Rafiqul Awal

Rabindra Das Vs the State of Assam and Anr.

Rabindra Das Vs the State of Assam and Anr.

Sri Siba Mahanta Vs the State of Assam and Anr.