cwp535.17 1/4
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR.
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.535 OF 2017.
PETITIONER : State Bank of India,
A Corporation constituted under the
State Bank of India Act, 1955, and having
one of its branch office amongst others
at Coal Estate Branch WCL H.Q., Nagpur
acting through Shri Praffula Uddhavrao
Pande, Manager of the Branch having
authority to file the complaint which includes
the authority to verify and sign the complaint.
..VERSUS..
RESPONDENT : State of Maharashtra,
through P.S.O.Gittkhadan, Nagpur.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Mr.M.Anil Kumar, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mrs.Geeta Tiwari, Addl.Public Prosecutor for the State.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
CORAM : P.N. DESHMUKH, J.
DATE : 28th SEPTEMBER, 2017.
ORAL JUDGMENT :
1. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of learned counsel of both the parties.
2. Challenge in this petition is to order dated 30 th November, 2016 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate (F.C.), Court No.10, ::: Uploaded on - 03/10/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 04/10/2017 01:00:58 ::: cwp535.17 2/4 Nagpur in M.C.A.No.4748 of 2016, rejecting the prayer for direction to investigate the matter under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (herein after referred as "the Code"). Said order was challenged by petitioner - bank by filing Criminal Revision No.76 of 2017 which was also dismissed by order dated 5th May, 2017, observing that if on reading of the complaint, the learned Magistrate finds that the allegation therein discloses cognizable offences and forwarding of the complaint to the police for investigation under Section 156(3) of the Code will not be conducive to justice, he has to justify to adopt the recourse under Section 200 of the Code. As such, by observing as aforesaid, the revisional Court found that there is no necessity to interfere with the order passed by the learned Magistrate. As such, it is found that challenge in this petition is to refusal of investigation as prayed for by petitioner-bank by filing complaint under Section 156(3) of the Code.
3. It appears to be the case of petitioner that it is a Bank constituted under the State Bank of India Act of 1955 and one of its Local Head Office is at Bandra Kurla Complex and one of its City Branch is at Coal Estate, WCL, Civil Lines, Nagpur. It is contended that one Mr.Sattar Hammed Baig had borrowed Rs.8,00,000/- from ::: Uploaded on - 03/10/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 04/10/2017 01:00:58 ::: cwp535.17 3/4 petitioner for purchasing a vehicle from M/s. Unnati Vehicles Pvt. Ltd. However, said person did not purchase the vehicle and after having received the demand draft has opened the forged account in the name of M/s. Unnati Vehicles with the Ravi Commercial Co-operative Bank by submitting forged documents in collusions with the employees of M/s. Unnati Vehicles Pvt. Ltd. and withdrawn the amount. It is submitted that even after repeated reminders given to said Baig, he has failed to produce vehicle as well as all requisite documents viz. RTO Registration Certificate for verification and inspection of banks. It is further submitted that on preliminary enquiry it was revealed that some of the documents submitted were forged and thus, the accused in connivance with each other has cheated the bank by utilizing the money for the purpose other than the sanction, by opening forged accounts in the name of the Car Agency and also submitted forged documents which essentially amounts to fraud and cheating and is a cognizable offence.
4. In the background of above facts, complaint was lodged with Gittikhadan Police Station, Nagpur on 8th September, 2016. However, no cognizance of the matter was taken and as such, petitioner was constrained to file private complaint for direction under ::: Uploaded on - 03/10/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 04/10/2017 01:00:58 ::: cwp535.17 4/4 Section 156(3) of the Code praying to direct police to investigate the matter. However, as stated above, said prayer was rejected. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that averements in the petition and the facts as afore mentioned are sufficient to constitute the cognizable offence and prayed that petition be allowed.
5. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor by filing affidavit-in- reply has brought on record fact of registration of offence being Crime No.553 of 2017 on the basis of complaint lodged by Praful Udhavrao Pande, Deputy Manager, State Bank of India, Coal Estate Branch, Nagpur for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 420, 465, 467, 468, 471, 120(B) read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code on 10 th September, 2017.
6. Having considered facts as aforesaid, it is noted that the grievance of the petitioner in the petition has been redressed. In the circumstances, petition succeeds. Rule is made absolute in above terms.
JUDGE chute ::: Uploaded on - 03/10/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 04/10/2017 01:00:58 :::