Bhekh Raj vs The State Of U.P Thru Secy., Home ...
2014 Latest Caselaw 2433 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
 
 

?Court No. - 26
 

 
Case :- U/S 482/378/407 No. - 2942 of 2014
 

 
Applicant :- Bhekh Raj
 
Opposite Party :- The State Of U.P Thru Secy., Home Lucknow And Ors.
 
Counsel for Applicant :- Jag Prasad Yadav
 
Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt. Advocate
 

 
Hon'ble Ajai Lamba,J.

1. It appears that the petitioner filed an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. seeking a direction from the concerned Magistrate to the effect that a case be registered against respondent nos.2 to 5 on the premise that the petitioner had taken loan for tractor and other implements, which had been repaid in August 2012. Despite the said facts, the tractor and implements have been repossessed/taken away by the respondent-Bank/accused. In the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner, conduct and actions of the respondents indicate commission of cognizable offence.

2. The application made by the petitioner was dismissed (Annexure-4).  The petitioner preferred a revision petition, which has also been dismissed (Annexure-2).

3. The premise on which the revision petition of the petitioner has been dismissed is that on repayment of loan petitioner should have taken a No Dues Slip.  Till such time, dues of the bank are to be paid.  Bank continues to be the owner of the articles taken on loan.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has referred to Annexure 3 to say that on the application of the petitioner the bank official has endorsed that no amount is due to be paid to the Bank.

5. In the contention of the learned counsel, the endorsement made by the Bank officials is on the basis of records, which would indicate that the petitioner had repaid the entire loan amount.

6. It has been pleaded that Annexure-3 was duly appended with the application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. and, therefore, prima facie cognizable offence has been committed by respondent nos.2 to 5.

7. Considering the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner, it is directed that notices be issued to respondent nos.2 to 5 through the concerned Chief Judicial Magistrates, returnable on 5.8.2014.

8. List on 5.8.2014.

9. It is made clear that no further time would be given to the respondents to file counter affidavit. Bank officers are directed to explain endorsement of Bank official dated 11 September, 2013 at Annexure-3.

Order Date :- 2.7.2014

A.Nigam