State Bank Of India, Nagpur Thr. ... vs The State Of Maharashtra Thr. ...
2017 Latest Caselaw 7674 Bom

  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,

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

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

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