Jharkhand High Court

Allahabad Bank vs The State Of Jharkhand on 1 August, 2024

Author: Anil Kumar Choudhary

Bench: Anil Kumar Choudhary

   IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                Cr.M.P. No. 3328 of 2017


Allahabad Bank, a body corporate constituted under the Banking
Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertaking) Act, 1970,
having its Head Office at 2, N.S. Road, Kolkata -700 001 and one of its
Zonal Office amongst other places is known as "Allahabad Bank",
Zonal Office, Ranchi, being represented through its Assistant General
Manager Sri Dhiraj Bhatia, son of Lt. Y.P. Bhatia both having its office
at Lalpur Chowk, P.O. & P.S. -Lalpur, District -Ranchi.


                                     ....                 Petitioner
                         Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. Dr. Pranay Madhur Sinha, son of Lt. (Dr.) Pritam Chandra, Guru
   Govind Singh Road, P.S. -Sadar, District -Hazaribagh.

                                     ....               Opp. Parties
                              With
                         Cr.M.P. No. 3377 of 2017


Rajiv Sinha, son of Lt. Suresh Prasad Sinha, Manager Property of Zonal
Office, Allahabad Bank, Lalpur Chowk, P.O. & P.S. -Lalpur, District -
Ranchi.


                                     ....                 Petitioner
                         Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. Dr. Pranay Madhur Sinha, son of Lt. (Dr.) Pritam Chandra, resident
   of Guru Govind Singh Road, P.O. -Hazaribagh, P.S. -Sadar, District
   -Hazaribagh.

                                     ....               Opp. Parties




                               1
                                                      Cr.M.P. No.3328 of 2017
                                                              With
                                                      Cr.M.P. No.3377 of 2017
                                                              With
                                                      Cr.M.P. No.3379 of 2017
                                        With
                            Cr.M.P. No. 3379 of 2017


          Suman Kumar, son of Sri Ram Janma Singh, Chief Manager, Allahabad
          Bank, Main Branch, Guru Govind Singh Road, P.O. & P.S. -Sadar,
          District -Hazaribagh.                ....               Petitioner
                                   Versus
          1. The State of Jharkhand
          2. Dr. Pranay Madhur Sinha, son of Lt. (Dr.) Pritam Chandra, resident
             of Guru Govind Singh Road, P.O. -Hazaribagh, P.S. -Sadar, District
             -Hazaribagh.
                                             ....                Opp. Parties

                                     PRESENT

                HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY
                                       .....

For the Petitioners : Mr. P.A.S. Pati, Advocate : Mr. Akshay Kumar, Advocate For the State : Mr. Jitendra Pandey, Addl. P.P. : Mr. Achinto Sen, Addl. P.P. .....

By the Court:-

1. Heard the parties.

2. Since all the three criminal miscellaneous petitions have

been filed with the selfsame prayer to quash the entire criminal

proceeding arising out of Complaint Case No. 1770 of 2017 by

which the complaint was referred to police for registration of

F.I.R. and to quash the Hazaribagh Sadar P.S. Case No.873 of 2017

corresponding to G.R. Case No. 3622 of 2017, registered for the

offences punishable under Section 420, 463, 467, 465, 468, 477, 500

& 504 of the Indian Penal Code, hence all these three criminal

With

With

miscellaneous petitions are disposed of by this common

judgment.

3. The allegations against the petitioners is that Allahabad

Bank, Main Branch, Hazaribagh was inducted as a tenant by the

father of the informant on month to month rental basis since May,

2001 at the rate of Rs.5 per square feet for the first floor and at the

rate of Rs.10 per square feet for the other floor. On May, 2008

before expiry of the lease deed, the mother of the complainant

requested to determine the monthly rent but with malafide

intention, the accused persons did not consider the lawful request

of the mother of the complainant. The mother of the complainant

approached the Sub-Divisional Magistrate-cum-House Rent

Controller, Hazaribagh who has enhanced the monthly rent to

Rs.25,050/- per month vide Case No. 11 of 2009 but after hatching

a conspiracy, the accused persons of the case did not comply the

order of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate and instead they filed an

appeal before the Deputy Commissioner, Hazaribagh being

Appeal No. 1 of 2011 and the same was dismissed by the Deputy

Commissioner, Hazaribagh. The accused persons of the case did

not comply the order of the Deputy Commissioner, Hazaribagh to

create Hungama in collusion with the local police. The petitioners

are forcibly occupying the rental premises.

4. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners

that at present there is no post of Chief Managing Director in the

With

With

Allahabad bank though the Chief Managing Director has been

arrayed as an accused. After the year, 2015, the post of Chief

Managing Director has been split up in Managing Director and

Chief Executive Officer. Similarly, there is no post in the name of

Deputy Zonal Manager. It is next submitted that otherwise also, a

post cannot be made an accused person and only a person can be

made an accused. It is then submitted that therefore Cr.M.P. No.

3328 of 2017 has been filed by the Allahabad Bank even though

the Allahabad Bank, itself has not been arrayed as an accused. It is

then submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that even

though the entire allegations made in the First Information Report

are considered to be true, still none of the offence for which the

case has been registered is made out against any of the petitioners

of the three criminal miscellaneous petitions. It is next submitted

that the petitioner of Cr.M.P. No. 3377 of 2017 namely Rajiv Sinha

was the Manager, Property, posted with the Zonal Office of

Allahabad Bank, Ranchi and there is no allegation of his being

involved in any of the allegations made in the complaint

personally. The petitioner of Cr.M.P. No. 3379 of 2017 namely

Suman Kumar was the Branch Head-cum-Chief Manager of

Hazaribagh Branch of Allahabad Bank and in his personal

capacity, there is no allegation of him also of doing any illegal act,

deed or thing.

With

5. It is next submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner

relying upon the Order of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the

case of Neetu Singh & Others Vs. State of U.P., reported in 2022

LiveLaw (SC) 281, where the accused persons of that case were

prosecuted for committing the offences of cheating for their

failure to pay rent, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India observed

that failure to pay rent may have several consequences but it is

not a penal offence under the Indian Penal Code as the mandatory

legal requirement of offence of cheating under Section 415 and

that of misappropriation under Section 403 of the Indian Penal

Code are missing and quashed the First Information Report.

Hence, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners

that the prayer as prayed for by the petitioners in the three

criminal miscellaneous petitions be allowed.

6. The learned Addl. P.P. opposes the prayer for quashing the

entire criminal proceeding arising out of Complaint Case No. 1770

of 2017 by which the complaint was referred to police for

registration of F.I.R. and for quashing the Hazaribagh Sadar P.S.

Case No.873 of 2017 corresponding to G.R. Case No. 3622 of 2017,

registered for the offences punishable under Section 420/463/

467/465/468/477/500/504 of the Indian Penal Code.

7. Having heard the rival submissions made at the Bar and

after carefully going through the materials available in the record,

it is pertinent to mention here that so far as the offence punishable

With

under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code is concerned, it is a

settled principle of law, as has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme

Court of India in the case of Uma Shankar Gopalika vs. State of

Bihar & Anr. reported in (2005) 10 SCC 336, paragraph no. 6 of

which reads as under :-

6. Xxxx xxxx xxxx It is well settled that every breach of contract would not give rise to an offence of cheating and only in those cases breach of contract would amount to cheating where there was any deception played at the very inception. If the intention to cheat has developed later on, the same cannot amount to cheating. In the present case it has nowhere been stated that at the very inception there was any intention on behalf of the accused persons to cheat which is a condition precedent for an offence under Section 420 IPC." (Emphasis supplied)

That every breach of contract would not give rise to an

offence of cheating and only in those cases breach of contract

would amount to cheating; where there was any deception played

at the very inception. If the intention to cheat has developed later

on, the same will not amount to cheating.

8. Now coming to the facts of the case, it is admitted case of

the complainant-informant that the petitioners of the criminal

miscellaneous petitions were occupying the premises as tenant for

considerable period of time, since the time of his father and

obviously they have been paying the rent. Subsequently, there

was a dispute between the parties regarding enhancement of rent.

So under such circumstances, it cannot be said that the petitioners

With

have committed the offence of cheating punishable under Section

420 of the Indian Penal Code.

9. Under such circumstances, this Court has no hesitation in

holding that even if the entire allegations made against the

petitioners are considered to be true still the offence punishable

under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code is not made out.

10. So far as the offence punishable under Section 463 of the

Indian Penal Code is concerned, it is not a penal offence, it only

defines forgery.

11. So far as the offences punishable under Section 465/467/

468/477 of the Indian Penal Code are concerned, the essential

ingredient for the same is commission of forgery. There is no

allegation against any of the persons of the case including the

petitioners of these three criminal miscellaneous petitions having

committed any forgery. Under, such circumstances, this Court is

of the considered view that even though the allegations made

against the petitioners are considered to be true, still the offences

punishable under Section 465/467/468/477 of the Indian Penal

Code are not made out.

12. So far as the offence punishable under Section 500 of the

Indian Penal Code is concerned, the same relates to punishment

for defamation but there is no allegation against the petitioners or

any of the accused persons of the case of having defamed the

complainant-informant or anyone else. Under such circumstances,

With

this Court is of the considered view that even if the entire

allegations made against the petitioners are considered to be true,

still the offence punishable under Section 500 of the Indian Penal

Code is not made out.

13. So far as the offence punishable under Section 504 of the

Indian Penal Code is concerned, it is a settled principle of law that

in order to constitute the offence punishable under Section 504 of

the Indian Penal Code, mere allegation that the accused persons

abused the complainant does not satisfy the ingredients of

constituting the offence punishable under Section 504 of the

Indian Penal Code as has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme

Court of India in the case of Vikram Johar vs. State of Uttar

Pradesh & Anr. reported in (2019) 14 SCC 207, paragraph nos. 24

of which reads as under :-

"24. Now, we revert back to the allegations in the complaint against the appellant. The allegation is that the appellant with two or three other unknown persons, one of whom was holding a revolver, came to the complainant's house and abused him in filthy language and attempted to assault him and when some neighbours arrived there the appellant and the other persons accompanying him fled the spot. The above allegation taking on its face value does not satisfy the ingredients of Sections 504 and 506 as has been enumerated by this Court in the above two judgments. The intentional insult must be of such a degree that should provoke a person to break the public peace or to commit any other offence. The mere allegation that the appellant came and abused the complainant does not satisfy the ingredients as laid down in para 13 of the judgment of this Court in Fiona Shrikhande [Fiona Shrikhande v. State of Maharashtra, (2013) 14 SCC 44 : (2014) 1 SCC (Cri) 715] .