Hanuman Soni vs State Of U.P. And 3 Others
2023 Latest Caselaw 25537 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 


?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:181576 
 
Court No. - 81
 

 
Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 10757 of 2022
 

 
Petitioner :- Hanuman Soni
 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Chandra Kant Tripathi,Anshul Pathak
 
Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Jainendra Kumar Mishra
 

 
Hon'ble Mrs. Jyotsna Sharma,J.

1. Heard Sri Chandra Kant Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Jainendra Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for respondent no.2-Branch Manager, respondent no.3-Field Officer and respondent no.4-Cashier of Punjab National Bank, Branch Vikramjot,Basti and learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

2. This petition has been filed by the petitioner with a prayer to quash/set aside the order dated 04.05.2022 passed by Additional Sessions Judge (second), Basti in Criminal Revision No.45 of 2021 affirming the order of C.J.M., Basti dated 18.02.2021 passed in Criminal Misc. Case No.410 of 2020 (Hanuman Soni vs. Piyush Satayam and other) and the aforesaid order passed by C.J.M., Basti as well.

3. Relevant facts are as below:-

The petitioner filed an application under Section 156 Cr.P.C. with the allegation that he is having CC Limit account since several years in the concerned branch of Punjab National Bank. On 23.01.2020 he deposited Rs.2 lac in cash, in the bank account of one Sri Rajesh Kumar Tiwari but the same was never transferred in his account. When the petitioner contacted the Bank, he was not given any good explanation, rather he was left to fend for himself. On 31.03.2020 he again deposited Rs.219141.01. However, again the amount was not deposited and wrong statement was given to him with the threat to freeze the petitioner's CC Limit account. As the accused persons have misappropriated his money, hence, case may be registered against them.

4. Counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondents no.2 to 4. Relevant paras-8 and 9 read as under:-

"8. The actual facts of the case is that son of the petitioner came to the Punjab National Bank to deposit of Rs.2,00,000/- in the account of Rajesh Kumar Tripathi and the cashier of the Bank issued the deposit receipt and handed over to Umesh Soni son of the petitioner but when the cashier started entering the said amount in the account of Rajesh Kumar Tripathi, then due to non-link of the account from the PAN number of Rajesh Kumar, the said amount was not considered by the system, in pursuance of that the cashier of the bank immediately informed to Umesh Soni, then he filled up another case memo and deposited the said amount in his account but the previous deposit receipt was not returned by Umesh Soni to the cashier due to illegal intention. The action of the son of the petitioner is totally illegal and the petitioner committed fraud with the bank.

9. Due to some mistake, the amount of Rs.2,19,141/- was wrongly entered into the account of the petitioner in place of the account of Ashok Trading Company, in pursuance of that the petitioner has full information and on the request of the actual beneficiary, the petitioner submitted an application before the bank with stated that he was not deposited the said amount, and requested to transfer the said amount in the account of the actual beneficiary, therefore the said amount was transferred in the account of Ashok Trading company."

Para no.14 and 15 of counter affidavit are as below:-

"14. When respondent no.4-Cashier informed to Umesh Soni about non deposit of the amount in the account of Rajesh Kumar Tripathi due to non link of the PAN number from his account, then Umesh Soni filled-up the deposit receipt for depositing such amount in his account which is clearly shown from a perusal of the deposit memo filled up by Umesh Soni and account statement which shows that the amount of Rs.2 lac were deposited in the account of Umesh Soni on 23.01.2020. The entire allegations mentioned in replied paras are totally false which was verified from a perusal of CCTV footage, on that basis the learned Magistrate rejected the application under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. filed by the petitioner.

15. As per perusal of the account details of Rajesh Kumar Tripathi, it is clear that Aadhar number was not seen and PAN could not be feeded so cash was not deposited, which was duly stamped by the officers of the bank but the petitioner illegally alleged that the PAN number was recorded in the account of Rajesh Kumar Tripathi. As per perusal of the CCTV footage and as per the report submitted by SHO, it clearly shows that the entire allegation mentioned in the petition as well as application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. filed by the petitioner is totally false."

Para 18 of the counter affidavit is as below-:

"18. The petitioner only trying to harass the officers of the bank because they do not allow the petitioner from transaction in the CC Limit account despite he was not having stock and GST registrations and bills which were needed, only due to that reason, the petitioner was filed the application U/s 156(3) Cr.P.C. against the private respondents who are the bank employees only for creating influence upon the official of the bank, due to that reason the petitioner deliberately and intentionally filed the application U/s 156(3) of Cr.P.C. which was rejected by the learned court below after considering the facts as well as record available before the learned courts below. There is no any illegality in the impugned orders, therefore, the present petition is not maintainable and liable to be dismissed with the heavy cost in the interest of justice."

5. Rejoinder affidavit has been filed by the petitioner. I went through the rejoinder affidavit. He has said nothing convincing in reply to the aforesaid paras of the counter affidavit.

6. The petitioner has failed to give any plausible explanation regarding sequence of events and circumstances in which they took place. The story given by the respondents in the counter affidavit largely remains unrebutted. The facts as mentioned by the respondent in the counter affidavit appear to have grain of truth.

7. The matter was heard by the Magistrate concerned. From the papers produced before the Magistrate concerned, it was disclosed that the applicant (petitioner herein) had given a letter admitting that no such money was ever transacted/deposited by him on 31.03.2020 and that by an inadvertent mistake or accident that particular sum of money was transferred to petitioner's account and he transferred the same in the account of right person, after taking consent letter from the petitioner. This court particularly takes notice of the facts that the petitioner knew the truth from the beginning, even then he had courage to file the application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. with utterly false statements. It is further disclosed from the papers on record that indeed the petitioner filed deposit slip for Rs.2 lac, for transferring the same in the account of one Rajesh Kumar Tiwari, but the same could not materialize. Information was duly sent by the bank to the petitioner and therefore, his son Umesh Kumar filled up second voucher for transfer of Rs.2 lac and the very same amount, therefore, was deposited in the account of son of the petitioner. What this Court notices with dismay is that the petitioner had all the knowledge that his claim in this regard is completely false. Perusal of the order shows that the order passed by C.J.M. dismissing the application under Section 156 Cr.P.C. was challenged before the revisional court and the revisional court dismissed the revision by giving good reasons and also took support from judgment of Full Bench of Allahabad High Court in the case of Sukhwasi vs. State of U.P. 2007(9) ACC 739 .

8. From the facts coming before this Court, this impression gains the ground that, the petitioner is taking advantage of some of papers which he was able to have, because matter was somewhat messed up at the concerned branch of the bank; What utterly surprises this Court is that the petitioner had a misplaced courage to pursue the matter upto the High Court, with an ulterior motive. The law should not be allowed to be used as a playground by unscrupulous litigant. He must know that law is not blind. The officers/officials of the bank had to spend time and money to contest this frivolous litigation right from trial court to this High Court. Hence, I propose to impose cost which shall be given to the victim respondents as token compensation, for the harassment they faced at the hands of the petitioner.

9. The petition is dismissed with cost of Rs.45,000/-.

10. The petitioner shall deposit this cost within a period of 15 days from today, with the registry of this Court. In case of failure to do so, the registry shall issue a recovery certificate to District Magistrate concerned, who shall take steps for recovery of the same, as arrears of land revenue. When the amount is deposited or recovered the same shall be transferred to the bank accounts of respondents no.2, 3 and 4 equally. The respondents shall submit their bank account details with the registry at the earliest.

11. Copy of this order be transmitted to court concerned.

Order Date :- 20.9.2023

Asha