Delhi High Court
Oriental Bank Of Commerce vs Lata Rani on 2 February, 2011
Author: Shiv Narayan Dhingra
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Order: 2nd February, 2011
+ Crl.M.C.No. 1391/2009
% 02.02.2011
Oriental Bank of Commerce ... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Balvinder Ralhan, Advocate
Versus
Lata Rani ... Respondent
Through: Mr. Jagat Singh, Advocate
JUSTICE SHIV NARAYAN DHINGRA
1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the reporter or not?
3. Whether judgment should be reported in Digest?
JUDGMENT
By present petition, the petitioner has assailed summoning Order dated
06.03.2009 passed by the Ld. ACMM whereby the petitioner was summoned
to face trial for offence under Section 406 IPC.
Brief facts relevant for the purpose of deciding this petition are that the
complainant was having a Saving Bank Account with petitioner bank
(Shadhara Branch) no. 12248. Another company M/s. Vasudha Courier was
having Current Account bearing same number i.e. 12248 with the same
branch. M/s Vasudha Courier deposited cash of Rs. 1500/- in its current
account on 30.11.2002. By a clerical mistake, this amount was shown
deposited by the bank in saving bank account no. 12248. Again on
18.12.2002 a sum of Rs.1500/- was deposited by M/s Vasudha Courier in
their current account but that was also credited in the saving bank account of
respondent. M/s Vasudha Courier who was having current account of the
same number wrote a letter to the bank accompanied by two counterfoils of
the pay-in slips and enquired as to why entries had not been made about
these deposits in the current account.
The bank then verified and realized that due to inadvertence, the
amounts deposited by M/s Vasudha Courier were credited in saving bank
account of the complainant. On realizing this, the entries were reversed from
the complainant account and the amount was credited to the amount of M/s
Vasudha Courier. The balance amount in complainant account after reversing
these entries came to be Rs. 4423/-.
After about two years the complainant got her pass book completed
and discovered about this reversal of entries. Due to a computer mistake her
balance was shown double the actual amount i.e. instead of Rs.4423/-, it was
shown as Rs.8846/-. A legal notice was sent by complainant to the bank as to
why the debit entries were made. The bank replied to the legal notice of the
complainant and explained its mistake of crediting the money of current
account of same number in her account. However, the complainant filed a
complaint against the bank under Section 406, 409 of IPC and under Section
31/74/77/92 of Negotiable Instruments Act.
Perusal of complaint of the complainant makes it clear that the entire
dispute between the complainant and the bank was in respect of the reversal
of entries and charges deducted by the bank in respect of non operation of
the account. These charges were also deducted as per rules.
I am surprised that the Ld. MM without going through the documents
and the complaint passed summoning order. In fact, the entire complaint and
the documents do not disclose commission of an offence under Section 406
IPC. The court should have refused to take cognizance of the complainant
itself in view of Section 81 of the IPC as well as Section 95 of IPC.
I therefore allow this petition.
The Order dated 6th March, 2009 passed by the learned ACMM is
hereby set aside.
February 02, 2011 SHIV NARAYAN DHINGRA, J.
siddhi
