In a significant procedural challenge concerning criminal prosecution of bank officials, the Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court stepped in to scrutinize a serious lapse by a trial court in Rajouri, where senior officials of J&K Bank were summoned in a cheating and intimidation complaint. The case raised critical questions on whether criminal law can be set into motion on the basis of vague and unsubstantiated allegations, especially against public-facing banking officials, without proper judicial application of mind.
The controversy began when a complainant alleged that a bank Branch Manager, acting on instructions of a Zonal Head, extracted Rs.2.5 lakh on the promise of securing employment, and later resorted to threats and abuse. Counsel for the petitioners argued that the complaint was frivolous, lacking material particulars, and that the trial court had mechanically issued process without directing an inquiry or investigation. It was further contended that being public servants, prior sanction under criminal procedure was mandatory.
On the other hand, counsel for the complainant maintained that the Magistrate was well within jurisdiction to take cognizance based on preliminary statements and that no prior sanction was required in such offences.
The Court, while rejecting the protection of prior sanction, delivered a sharp rebuke to the trial court’s approach, emphasizing that criminal summons cannot be issued casually. Citing the Supreme Court’s ruling, the bench reiterated, “Summoning of an accused in a criminal case is a serious matter. Criminal law cannot be set into motion as a matter of course.” The Court found the complaint to be riddled with “bald and unsupported assertions,” noting the absence of basic details like date, time, or place of the alleged transaction, and no substantiation linking the second accused. It concluded that the Magistrate acted in a “perfunctory manner” and that the order reflected a “fundamental lack of application of mind.”
Consequently, the summoning order dated 27.10.2018 was set aside, and the matter was remitted back to the trial court for fresh consideration in accordance with law.
Picture Source :
