Dismissed

A.N.Singh v. State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC1 Dec 2023Cr.M.P./962/2003

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A bank complained against a former Drawing and Disbursing Authority for alleged misappropriation of funds. The trial court discharged the accused for lack of criminal intent. The bank challenged the discharge via a criminal revision petition before the Addl. Sessions Judge, which was allowed. The High Court, in contempt proceedings, dismissed the bank's special leave petition seeking quashing of t

What did the court decide?

The special leave petition/filing under Section 482 CrPC is dismissed, upholding the order discharging the accused.

A.N.Singh Vs State of Jharkhand — Cheque Dishonour | Jharkhand HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr.M.P. No. 962 of 2003

¶2

A.N. Singh ….Petitioner. Versus 1. State of Jharkhand 2. Virendra Kumar.. ….Opp. Parties.

¶3

CORAM : SRI ANANDA SEN, J.

¶4

-----For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. P.A.S. Pati Advocate. For the State : Mr. Rajesh Kumar, A.P.P. For Opp. Party No. 2 : Mr. S. Jaipuriar, Advocate.

¶5

28/01.12.2023: Heard the counsel for the parties.

¶6

In this petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 20.2.2001, whereby the learned Addl. Sessions Judge-I, Hazaribagh has been pleased to allow Cr. Rev. No. 137 of 1999 and discharged the opposite party No. 2 in criminal case.

¶7

The Allahabad Bank through its Manager filed an information, which was registered as Sadar Hazaribagh P.S. Case No. 36 of 1991 alleging offence punishable under Sections 409, 468, 420, 477-A IPC implicating opposite party No. 2, herein, as an accused. Admittedly the opposite party No. 2 was self Drawing and Disbursing Authority of the Bank and he withdrew his due salary. After investigation charge-sheet was filed under the aforesaid sections. The opposite party No. 2 preferred a discharge petition before the trial court which was dismissed on 1.8.1994. The said dismissal order dated 1.8.1994 was challenged in Cr. Revision No. 240 of 1994, which was disposed of on 27.1.1999 remanding the case to the court below for re-consideration of the prayer for discharge on the point of mens rea of the petitioner. The trial court again dismissed the discharge application vide order dated 27.8.1999, which was challenged in Cr. Revision No. 137 of 1999. The learned 1^st Addl. Sessions Judge, Hazrigagh after considering the prayer made by the parties and on the facts of the case allowed the revision petition vide order dated 20.2.2001 by setting aside the order impugned and ultimately discharged the accused. The impugned order dated 20.2.2001 has been challenged by the Bank Authority by filing this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

¶8

The opposite party No. 2 was an official of the Bank and was the Drawing and Disbursing Authority also. He was transferred. He filed a title suit being Title Suit No. 80/1999 challenging his transfer order. The suit was

¶9

¶10

contested and ultimately the Court decreed the suit holding that the plaintiff (opp. Party No. 2) cannot be disturbed from his present place of posting. After the said order was passed, the petitioner being the Drawing and Disbursing Authority withdrew a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- on 1.2.1991 as advance against his arrears of salary dues from September 1988 to January, 1991 and again on 2.2.1991, he deposited the said amount. He again took an advance of Rs.1,26,000/-. It is alleged that the said amount was withdrawn without taking any sanction from the higher officials. Thus the criminal prosecution.

¶11

Admittedly, the suit challenging the order of transfer was decreed in favour of the opposite party No. 2. It is also admitted that the opposite party No. 2 was the Drawing and Disbursing Authority of the Bank. It is further admitted that he withdrew his due salary for the period from September, 1988 to January 1991. The learned Addl. Sessions Judge-I, Hazaribagh had found that there was no mens rea on the part of opposite party No. 2 to defraud the Bank, rather he withdrew the amount, which was dues to him. Learned Addl. Sessions Judge-I, Hazaribagh has also found that the opposite party No. 2 was the competent authority to withdraw the amount, as he was the Drawing and Disbursing Authority of the Bank. It was also found that opposite party No. 2 was allowed to hold the same post from where he was transferred and the judgment of competent Civil Court was upheld by the higher Court. Thus, the learned 1^st Addl. Sessions Judge has found that there is no criminality in the entire transaction, which requires criminal trial. He thus allowed the application and discharged the opposite party No. 2.

¶12

After going through the order and records, I also find that there is no illegality in the impugned order. Once it is found that there is no element of criminality in any transaction, which requires criminal trial, no criminal proceeding can be allowed to proceed. The proceeding will be an abuse of the process of Court. Thus, the learned 1^st Addl. Sessions Judge, Hazarigagh, has rightly discharged opposite party No. 2 and allowed Criminal Revision No. 137 of 1999, preferred by him.

¶13

There is no merit in this petition. Accordingly, the same is dismissed.

¶14

(ANANDA SEN, J.)

¶15

Anu/-Cp3.

A.N.Singh v. State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

A.N.Singh v. State of Jharkhand

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

Jirwa Devi Vs the State of Jharkhand

Nishu Turi Vs the State of Jharkhand

Votwa Devi Vs the State of Jharkhand

Rajesh Kumar Thakur Vs the State of Jharkhand

Chitaman Ganjhu Alias Chitaman Bhokta Vs the State of Jharkhand

Danish Rja Alias Chhotu Alias Danish Vs the State of Jharkhand