Brij Raj Singh, J
1. Since the common question of facts and law are involved in these three applications, therefore, they are being heard and decided by a common judgement.
2. Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. No.2818 of 2022 has been filed seeking quashing of the entire proceedings of Complaint Case No.37720 of 2021, Sandeep Kumar Vs. State of U.P. and others, arising out of Crime No.0649 of 2019, under Sections 406, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 504 IPC relating to Police Station Ashiyana, District Lucknow as well as the summoning order dated 06.10.2021 and the non-bailable warrant issued on 30.11.2021 by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-5, Room No.29, Lucknow.
3. Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. No.4638 of 2021 has been filed seeking quashing of the entire proceedings of Complaint Case No.37720 of 2021, Sandeep Kumar Vs. State of U.P. and others, arising out of Crime No.0649 of 2019, under Sections 406, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 504 IPC relating to Police Station Ashiyana, District Lucknow as well as the summoning order dated 06.10.2021 and the order dated 19.07.2021 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-5, Room No.29, Lucknow, by which the protest petition ordered to be filed as Complaint case.
4. Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. No.5376 of 2021 has been filed seeking quashing of the entire proceedings of Complaint Case No.37720 of 2021, Sandeep Kumar Vs. State of U.P. and others, arising out of Crime No.0649 of 2019, under Sections 406, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 504 IPC relating to Police Station Ashiyana, District Lucknow as well as the summoning order dated 06.10.2021 and the non-bailable warrant issued on 30.11.2021 by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-5, Room No.29, Lucknow.
5. Brief facts giving rise to the present case are that an FIR at Case Crime No.0649 of 2019, under Sections 406, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 504 IPC was dogged by opposite party no.2 on 12.09.2019 with the allegation that Abhay Kumar, who was the Branch Manager of the Union Bank of India, Branch M-1A, Sector-L, Ashiyana, Kanpur Road, Lucknow, had committed fraud with him. It is stated in the FIR that opposite party no.2 is less educated and a labourer, who was persuaded by the Branch Manager to open an account in his branch and also asked his identity card, registered deed of house and the electricity bill. On the persuasion made by Abhay Kumar, opposite party no.2 went to the cabin of the Branch Manager along with all relevant papers and his signature was obtained by the employee of the bank on some blank papers and on a blank cheque. Abhay Kumar told opposite party no.2 that account will be opened in his name and he may operate the same. Thereafter, opposite party no.2 used to operate the account, but on 27.03.2017 he came to know that his account has been declared as Non-Performing Asset (NPA) and then he made contact with the branch and the newly appointed Branch Manager, Sri Himanshu Nigam, who told him that since the loan amount taken by him could not be re-payed, therefore, the account has been declared as NPA. Thereafter, opposite party no.2 made contact with Abhay Kumar, who abused opposite party no.2 and told him that he had left the branch, therefore, he had no concern. The FIR further mentions that opposite party no.2 was defrauded by Abhay Kumar and Rs.8,00,000/- was taken as loan and the same was also withdrawn by him by using fraudulent means with the connivance of other bank officials.
6. The police recorded the statements of the complainant and other witnesses and thereafter final report was submitted before the supervising officer on 27.06.2020. However, the supervising officer withheld the final report and raised an objection that whether there is any rule for withdrawing the entire loan amount through one cheque. The supervising officer also observed that since there was a CD, wherein conversation between opposite party no.2 and Abhay Kumar was available, therefore, it was to be inquired into. On the objection raised by the supervising officer, the final report was cancelled by the Deputy Commissioner of Police vide order dated 16.09.2020 and ordered for re-investigation. In pursuance of the aforesaid direction, further/additional statement of opposite party no.2 was recorded, wherein he stated that Rs.8,00,000/- of the loan amount was withdrawn through one cheque and the same was utilised by Abhay Kumar in connivance with the Deputy Branch Manager, Loan Manager, Head Cashier, Peon and others. However, the Investigating Officer has again filed final report on 19.02.2021 holding all the charges levelled against the applicants were not corroborated from the documents.
7. Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid action of the Investigating Officer, opposite party no.2 filed a protest petition, which was accepted by the Magistrate concerned and a direction was issued to register the protest petition as complaint vide order dated 08.07.2021 and the case was fixed for recording the statements under Section 200 Cr.P.C. Thereafter, statement of opposite party no.2 under Section 200 Cr.P.C. was recorded, wherein he has named Abhay Kumar, the then Branch Manager, Rajesh Kumar, Deputy Branch Manager, Loan Manager, Ayushi Mishra, Brijesh Kumar @ Brijesh Kumar Kashyap, Peon and made statement that the bank officials and the employees were involved in fraudulent activities and without his knowledge, the loan amount of Rs.8,00,000/- was sanctioned and the same was withdrawn by Sri Abhay Kumar in connivance with the other officials of the bank. Statements of Nitin Pachauri and Bhupendra Singh were also recorded under Section 202 Cr.P.C., who also supported the statement of opposite party no.2 recorded under Section 200 Cr.P.C. After going through the evidences and the statements recorded under Section 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. the Magistrate concerned issued summons against the applicants, which are under challenge.
Submissions on behalf of applicant-Ayushi Mishra in Application U/s 482 Cr.P.C. No.4638 of 2021
8. Sri Rajiv Kumar Bajpai, learned counsel appearing for the applicant has submitted that the FIR was lodged only against Abhay Kumar, the then Branch Manager and there is no allegation against the applicant in the FIR. He has further submitted that twice final reports were submitted in the case, but on the protest made by opposite party no.2, the applicant has been summoned. There is inordinate delay of five years in lodging the FIR as the incident is alleged to have been occurred in the year 2014, whereas the FIR has been lodged in 2019. Further submission is that loan was sanctioned after following the due procedure and the loan amount of Rs.8,00,000/- was credited in the account of opposite party no.2 and, thereafter, the said amount was withdrawn by opposite party no.2 through a cheque duly signed by him. He has also submitted that even in the statement of opposite party no.2 recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., there is no allegation against the applicant and she has been summoned only on the statements recorded under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. which are not corroborated by the evidence on record. Further submission is that from perusal of the evidence on record, it is apparent that applicant is not instrumental in any manner in withdrawing the loan amount, as alleged, as she is only the sanctioning authority and moreover only on the basis of the statements recorded under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C., the trial court cannot issue summons against the applicant ignoring the material fact that twice final reports were submitted in the case.
Submissions on behalf of applicant-Rajesh Kumar in Application U/s 482 Cr.P.C. No.5376 of 2021
9. Sri R.D. Shahi, learned counsel appearing for the applicant has submitted that applicant has not been named in the FIR and twice final reports were submitted in this case. He has further invited the attention of the Court towards the statement of opposite party no.2 recorded under Section 200 Cr.P.C. and has submitted that there is statement of facts recorded by opposite party no.2 wherein he has mentioned that Ayushi Mishra, Loan Manager, Rajesh Kumar, Deputy Branch Manager, Puttilal Verma, Head Cashier and Brijesh Kumar @ Brijesh Kumar Kashyap, Class-IV employee were present in the cabin of Abhay Kumar, the then Branch Manager and the Branch Manager told him that a letter will be sent to his house; thus, a bare perusal of the statement recorded under Section 200 Cr.P.C., it appears that there is no role of the applicant in committing the alleged fraud. Further submission is that applicant has been falsely implicated in the case and even if he was present in the cabin of the Branch Manager, it does not mean that he was instrumental in committing the fraud. Counsel for the applicant has also submitted that the loan amount of Rs.8,00,000/- was credited in the account of opposites party no.2 after following due procedure and the same was withdrawn by opposite party no.2 on his signature, therefore, presumption cannot be drawn that applicant was involved in the commission of crime.
Submissions on behalf of applicant-Brijesh Kumar @ Brijesh Kumar Kashyap in Application U/s 482 Cr.P.C. No.2818 of 2022
10. Sri Sanjay Kumar Rao, learned counsel appearing for the applicant has submitted that applicant is a Class-IV employee and he has no role in the sanction of loan and in case he was present in the cabin of the Branch Manager, it does not mean that he had committed any fraud. Further submission is that criminal case should not be filed by a person in so casual manner and launching of criminal case is a serious issue, which is deprecated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in many cases viz. M/s Pepsi Food Ltd and another Vs. Special Judicial Magistrate and others (1998) 5 SCC 749, Sunil Bharti Mittal Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation, (2015) 4 SCC 609 and Birla Corporation Limited Vs. Adventz Investments and Holdings Limited and others, (2019) 16 SCC 610.
11. In support of his contention, counsel for the applicant has placed reliance upon paragraph-28 of the judgement rendered in the case of M/s Pepsi Foods Limited (supra), which is quoted below:-
“28. Summoning of an accused in a criminal case is a serious matter. Criminal law cannot be set into motion as a matter of course. It is not that the complainant has to bring only two witnesses to support his allegations in the complaint to have the criminal law set into motion. The order of the Magistrate summoning the accused must reflect that he has applied his mind to the facts of the case and the law applicable thereto. He has to examine the nature of allegations made in the complaint and the evidence both oral and documentary in support thereof and would that be sufficient for the complainant to succeed in bringing charge home to the accused. It is not that the Magistrate is a silent spectator at the time of recording of preliminary evidence before summoning of the accused. The Magistrate has to carefully scrutinise the evidence brought on record and may even himself put questions to the complainant and his witnesses to elicit answers to find out the truthfulness of the allegations or otherwise and then examine if any offence is prima facie committed by all or any of the accused.”
12. Counsel for the applicant has also placed reliance upon paragraphs 51 and 52 of the judgement rendered in the case of Sunil Bharti Mittal (supra), which are quoted below:-
“51. On the other hand, Section 204 of the Code deals with the issue of process, if in the opinion of the Magistrate taking cognizance of an offence, there is sufficient ground for proceeding. This section relates to commencement of a criminal proceeding. If the Magistrate taking cognizance of a case (it may be the Magistrate receiving the complaint or to whom it has been transferred under Section 192), upon a consideration of the materials before him (i.e. the complaint, examination of the complainant and his witnesses, if present, or report of inquiry, if any), thinks that there is a prima facie case for proceeding in respect of an offence, he shall issue process against the accused.
52. A wide discretion has been given as to grant or refusal of process and it must be judicially exercised. A person ought not to be dragged into court merely because a complaint has been filed. If a prima facie case has been made out, the Magistrate ought to issue process and it cannot be refused merely because he thinks that it is unlikely to result in a conviction.”
13. Further, counsel for the applicant has placed reliance upon paragraph-33 of the judgement rendered in the case of Birla Corporation Limited (supra), which is quoted below:-
“33. The order of the Magistrate summoning the accused must reflect that he has applied his mind to the facts of the case and the law applicable thereto. The application of mind has to be indicated by disclosure of mind on the satisfaction. Considering the duties on the part of the Magistrate for issuance of summons to accused in a complaint case and that there must be sufficient indication as to the application of mind and observing that the Magistrate is not to act as a post office in taking cognizance of the complaint, in Mehmood Ul Rehman, this Court held as under:-
“22. ….the Code of Criminal Procedure requires speaking order to be passed under Section 203 Cr.P.C. when the complaint is dismissed and that too the reasons need to be stated only briefly. In other words, the Magistrate is not to act as a post office in taking cognizance of each and every complaint filed before him and issue process as a matter of course. There must be sufficient indication in the order passed by the Magistrate that he is satisfied that the allegations in the complaint constitute an offence and when considered along with the statements recorded and the result of inquiry or report of investigation under Section 202 Cr.P.C., if any, the accused is answerable before the criminal court, there is ground for proceeding against the accused under Section 204 Cr.P.C., by issuing process for appearance. The application of mind is best demonstrated by disclosure of mind on the satisfaction. If there is no such indication in a case where the Magistrate proceeds under Sections 190/204 Cr.P.C., the High Court under Section 482 Cr.PC. is bound to invoke its inherent power in order to prevent abuse of the power of the criminal court. To be called to appear before the criminal court as an accused is serious matter affecting one’s dignity, self- respect and image in society. Hence, the process of criminal court shall not be made a weapon of harassment.”
14. Counsel for the applicant has vehemently argued that the Magistrate while summoning the applicant has to see that he has applied his mind to the facts of the case and the law applicable. The disclosure of mind and satisfaction should be based on sufficient evidence, which is lacking in the present case.
Submissions made on behalf of opposite party no.2
15. Replying the submissions made on behalf of all the applicants, Sri Sudeep Seth, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Anuj Kumar, appearing for opposite party no.2 has submitted that on the objection raised by the supervising officer, the final report was cancelled by the Deputy Commissioner of Police vide order dated 16.09.2020 and ordered for re-investigation. In pursuance of the aforesaid direction, further/ additional statement (Majid Bayaan) of opposite party no.2 was recorded, in which he stated before the Investigating Officer that Abhay Kumar, the then Branch Manager persuaded him to open an account and he asked opposite party no.2 to come to his bank along with identity card, electricity bill and the registered deed of house on 24.01.2014. Again he was called by Abhay Kumar on 01.03.2014 and when he went to his cabin, he saw that many bank officials and employees of the bank were sitting in his cabin. Signature of opposite party no.2 was obtained on a blank paper as well as on withdrawal form and Abhay Kumar told him that he could do the business of catering after loan was sanctioned. The amount of Rs.8,00,000/- was withdrawn by Abhay Kumar, the then Branch Manager himself and the same was utilized by the other bank officials viz. Deputy Branch Manager, Loan Manager, Head Cashier and Peon. However, the Investigating Officer has again filed final report on 19.02.2021 stating all the charges levelled against the applicants were not corroborated from the documents. Thereafter, protest petition was filed by opposite party no.2 and the trial court has treated the same as complaint and the case was fixed for recording the statement of opposite party no.2. The statement recorded under Section 200 Cr.P.C. goes to indicates that opposite party no.2 has levelled specific allegation against all the applicants and he has categorically stated before the trial court that all the applicants were present in the cabin of the then Branch Manager and he was told by the Branch Manager that his account will be opened within 3-4 days. On 01.03.2014, opposite party no.2 was again called by Abhay Kumar and he deposited Rs.40,000/- and Rs.1,500/- in the account. In the cabin, Ayushi Mishra, Loan Manager, Rajesh Kumar, Deputy Branch Manager, Puttilal Verma, Head Cashier and Brijesh Kumar @ Brijesh Kumar Kashyap, Peon were present and no paper was handed over to opposite party no.2 and later on he came to know that Rs.8,00,000/- loan was sanctioned to him and the entire amount was withdrawn on 01.03.2014 itself through one cheque though he was not given any document relating to sanction of loan. Abhay Kumar told him that he had withdrawn the loan amount and the same will be returned to him later on.
16. Counsel for opposite party no.2 has further made submission that Sri Abhay Kumar, the then Branch Manager got inspected the property by the approved valuer on 23.01.2014, who submitted the valuation certificate on 24.01.2014 regarding the property of opposite party no.2. Abhay Kumar in collusion with the other applicants and the bank staff called opposite party no.2 on 01.03.2014 and took his signature on few blank papers as well as on withdrawal forms. Abhay Kumar informed that after completing the loan formalities of Rs.8,00,000/-, bank would send sanction letter. Since opposite party no.2 did not get any sanction latter, he met the then Branch Manager, who told him that money was utilized by him and the same would be paid to him after some time. The said conversation was recorded in CD by opposite party no.2.
17. Counsel for opposite party no.2 has further invited the attention of the Court towards Page Nos.133, 134, 135, 137, 140, 141 (Annexure CA-12) of the counter affidavit filed by him and has submitted that application dated 01.03.2014 for grant of loan of Rs.8,00,000/- was sanctioned to opposite party no.2 by the bank, however, no signature of borrower/guarantor/Branch Manager is available on the sanction letter, which is evident at Page No.140 of the counter affidavit filed by opposite party no.2. Opposite party no.2 also obtained information under Right to Information Act from the bank, which is at Page No.131 of the counter affidavit filed by opposite party no.2, in which it has been pointed out that loan is always disbursed after signing of sanction letter and loan related documents by borrower, but in the present case, no such signature is available on the sanction letter dated 01.03.2014, which is annexed as CA-12 to the counter affidavit filed by opposite party no.2 and there is no signature of borrower/guarantor on it.
18. Counsel for opposite party no.2 has further invited the attention of the Court towards Page No.142 (Annexure CA-13) of the counter affidavit, which is a letter dated 28.02.2014 alleged to be written by opposite party no.2 for issuance of a loose cheque to him, pursuant to which, a loose cheque has been issued, which is at Page No.143 of the counter affidavit. The said cheque indicates that a maximum limit of Rs.25,000/- can be withdrawn, but a bare perusal of the said cheque indicates that Rs.8,00,000/- has been withdrawn in utter violation of the norms of the bank. He has further invited the attention of the Court towards the answers given to the queries made through Right to Information Act, wherein at Point No.7, it is mentioned that “withdrawal form on which specifically mentioned up to Rs.25,000/- is allowed for that amount only”. Further attention of the Court has been drawn towards the reply given to Point No.12, wherein it is mentioned by the bank that “cash withdrawal is not allowed from loan account”. From the aforesaid document, it is abundantly clear that on the loose cheque, maximum limit of withdrawal is of Rs.25,000/-, Rs.8,00,000/- was withdrawn, which was not at all possible for opposite party no.2 to withdraw such amount and the fraudulent activity has been done by the applicants, who were in connivance with each other.
19. Learned Senior Counsel for opposite party no.2 has further submitted that no legal grounds have been taken by the applicants’ counsel. Statements of Nitin Pachauri and Bhupendra Singh were recorded under Section 202 Cr.P.C. and they had also supported the prosecution case. He has further submitted that after going through the record and the statements recorded under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. the Magistrate issued summons, which are based on evidence on record. Once the statements under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. are recorded and the same disclose the commission of an offence, the trial court was right in issuing the summons and there is no illegality or infirmity in the summons, rather it have been issued after application of mind. Further submission is that once the offence is disclosed, this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. may not interfere in the summons issued and cannot do mini trial and lead evidences and the trial is the only method, by which the truth can come out.
20. To buttress his argument, counsel for opposite party no.2 has placed reliance upon the judgement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court rendered in the case of Dharambeer Kumar Singh Vs. State of Jharkhand and another, (2025) 1 SCC 392, particularly on paragraphs 17, 18, 19 and 21, which read as under:-
“17. This Court in a series of judgements has held that while exercising inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, the High Court is not supposed to hold a mini trial. A profitable reference can be made to the judgment in the case of CBI vs Aryan Singh (2023 SCC Online SC 379). Relevant paragraph from the judgment is extracted here under:
"6. …. As per the cardinal principle of law, at the stage of discharge and/or quashing of the criminal proceedings, while exercising the powers under Section 482 Cr. P.C., the Court is not required to conduct the mini trial.
7. …. At the stage of discharge and/or while exercising the powers under Section 482 Cr. P.C., the Court has a very limited jurisdiction and is required to consider "whether any sufficient material is available to proceed further against the accused for which the accused is required to be tried or not".
18. In the instant case, the High Court has delved into an aspect which was absolutely not warranted and has exceeded its jurisdiction. The aspect about complicity of a person who was involved in the forgery is a disputed question of fact and the same will have to be addressed after a proper appreciation of evidence which can be done only during trial and not at such a nascent stage when summons is served. The Magistrate while considering the fact that the Respondent No.2 - Santosh Kumar Choudha, was a beneficiary and after considering the scope of summons order had rightly observed that a prima facie case is made out and the same required an adjudication through a trial.
19. The High Court ought to have considered the complicity of the accused in case of forgery, which will have to be addressed after a proper appreciation of evidence and such appreciation of evidence can be done only by undertaking the initial process i.e. by conducting the trial on the aspect of forgery. The summons order was only at an initial stage and at such a nascent stage, the High Court ought not to have recorded the finding on the aspect of forgery.
21. Accordingly, in our opinion, the present case warrants interference by this Court, and we do so. We hereby quash and set aside the Judgments passed by the High Court of Jharkhand and remand back the matter before the learned Judicial Magistrate for proceeding with the trial in accordance with law. The accused persons are to face trial for offences in which they are charge sheeted. However, it is observed that all the contentions and defences, which are available to the respective parties are kept open, to be considered by the learned Trial Court during the trial.”
21. Counsel for opposite party no.2 has further placed reliance upon the judgement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court rendered in the case of Parbatbhai Aahir alias Parbatbhai Bhimsinhbhai Karmur and others Vs. State of Gujarat and another, (2017) 9 SCC 641, particularly on paragraphs 13 and 14, which read as under:-
“13. In State of Maharashtra v Vikram Anantrai Doshi, a Bench of two learned Judges of this Court explained the earlier decisions and the principles which must govern in deciding whether a criminal proceeding involving anon-compoundable offence should be quashed. In that case, the respondents were alleged to have obtained Letters of Credit from a bank in favour offictitious entities. The charge-sheet involved offences under Sections 406,420, 467, 468, and 471 read with Section 120-B of the Penal Code. Bogus beneficiary companies were alleged to have got them discounted by attaching fabricated bills. Mr Justice Dipak Misra (as the learned Chief Justice then was) emphasised that the case involved an allegation of forgery; hence the court was not dealing with a simple case where “the accused had borrowed money from a bank, to divert it elsewhere”. The court held that the manner in which Letters of Credit were issued and funds were siphoned off had a foundation in criminal law:
“26... availing of money from a nationalized bank in the manner,as alleged by the investigating agency, vividly exposits fiscal impurity and, in a way, financial fraud. The modus operandi as narrated in the charge- sheet cannot be put in the compartment of an individual or personal wrong. It is a social wrong and it has immense societal impact. It is an accepted principle of handling of finance that whenever there is manipulation and cleverly conceived contrivance to avail of these kind of benefits it cannot be regarded as a case having overwhelmingly and predominatingly of civil character. The ultimate victim is the collective. It creates a hazard in the financial interest of the society. The gravity of the offence creates a dent in the economic spine of the nation.”
The judgment of the High Court quashing the criminal proceedings was hence set aside by this Court.
14. The same principle was followed in Central Bureau of Investigation v Maninder Singh by a bench of two learned Judges of this Court. In that case, the High Court had, in the exercise of its inherent power under Section 482 quashed proceedings under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 read with Section 120-B of the Penal Code. While allowing the appeal filed by the Central Bureau of Investigation Mr Justice Dipak Misra (as the learned Chief Justice then was) observed that the case involved allegations of forgery of documents to embezzle the funds of the bank. In such a situation, the fact that the dispute had been settled with the bank would not justify a recourse to the power under Section 482:
“...In economic offences Court must not only keep in view that money has been paid to the bank which has been defrauded but also the society at large. It is not a case of simple assault or a theft of a trivial amount; but the offence with which we are concerned is well planned and was committed with a deliberate design with an eye of personal profit regardless of consequence to the society at large. To quash the proceeding merely on the ground that the accused has settled the amount with the bank would be a misplaced sympathy. If the prosecution against the economic offenders are not allowed to continue, the entire community is aggrieved."
22. Counsel for opposite party no.2 has made emphasis particularly on paragraphs 16.3, 16.4, 16.8, 16.9 and 16.10, which are extracted herein below:-
“16. The broad principles which emerge from the precedents on the subject,may be summarised in the following propositions:-
………………………………...
16.3. In forming an opinion whether a criminal proceeding or complaint should be quashed in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 482, the High Court must evaluate whether the ends of justice would justify the exercise of the inherent power;
16.4. While the inherent power of the High Court has a wide ambit and plenitude it has to be exercised; (i) to secure the ends of justice or (ii) to prevent an abuse of the process of any court.
…………………………..
16.8. Criminal cases involving offences which arise from commercial,financial, mercantile, partnership or similar transactions with an essentially civil flavour may in appropriate situations fall for quashing where parties have settled the dispute;
16.9. In such a case, the High Court may quash the criminal proceeding if in view of the compromise between the disputants, the possibility of a conviction is remote and the continuation of a criminal proceeding would cause oppression and prejudice; and
16.10. There is yet an exception to the principle set out in propositions (viii) and(ix) above. Economic offences involving the financial and economic well-being of the state have implications which lie beyond the domain of a mere dispute between private disputants. The High Court would be justified in declining to quash where the offender is involved in an activity akin to a financial or economic fraud or misdemeanour. The consequences of the act complained of upon the financial or economic system will weigh in the balance.”
23. Lastly, counsel for opposite party no.2 while replying the submission made by the applicants that though they have been exonerated by the police and twice final reports were submitted, but only on the basis of the statements recorded under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C., order for registration of complaint case and issuing summons against the applicants is erroneous, has submitted that evidence collected by the police during investigation after lodging the FIR, has no relevance once the case is treated as complaint case after rejecting the final reports.
24. In support of his contention, he has placed reliance upon the judgement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court rendered in the case of Rajeev Kourav Vs. Baisahab and others, (2020) 3 SCC 317. Paragraphs 10 and 11 of the said judgement read as under:-
“10. We do not agree with the submissions made on behalf of Respondent Nos.1 to 3. The conclusion of the High Court to quash the criminal proceedings is on the basis of its assessment of the statements recorded under Section 161 CrPC. Statements of witnesses recorded under Section 161 CrPC being wholly inadmissible in evidence cannot be taken into consideration by the Court, while adjudicating a petition filed under Section 482 CrPC (Rajendra Singh v. State of U.P. and another (2007) 7 SCC 378].
11. Moreover, the High Court was aware that one of the witnesses mentioned that the deceased informed him about the harassment meted out by Respondent Nos.1 to 3 which she was not able to bear and hence wanted to commit suicide. The High Court committed an error in quashing criminal proceedings by assessing the statements under Section 161 Cr. P.C.”
25. I heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned AGA-I as well as learned Senior Counsel for the complainant-opposite party no.2 and perused the record.
26. After going through the record as well as the statements recorded under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C., it is evident that there is serious a allegation by opposite party no.2 against the applicants that they were involved in the sanction of loan amount of Rs.8,00,000/- in the name of opposite party no.2 and thereafter the same was fraudulently withdrawn without his knowledge on a loose cheque, where a maximum limit of withdrawal of Rs.25,000/- is provided. The allegation is also supported by the statements of two witnesses viz. Nitin Pachauri and Bhupendra Singh recorded under Section 202 Cr.P.C. It is well settled law that in a case involving offences for financial, mercantile, partnership or similarly transactions where fraud has been committed, the Court has to see that in case serious allegation of fraud is levelled, then certainly the criminal proceeding can be launched and the case should be tried. The Court has to consider the complicity of the accused in case of forgery, which can be done after proper appreciation of evidence and such appreciation of evidence can be done only by undertaking the initial process, for which certainly the trial is required. This Court while exercising the inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. cannot give any finding whether the offence was committed by the applicants or not, but certainly the Court has to see the evidences on record and the statements recorded under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. After going through the statements recorded under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C., this Court finds that prima facie, the offence is made out, rather the allegations are specific against the applicants, for which certainly the trial is required.
27. In the subject matter of forgery, the law is settled by the Supreme Court in the case of Dharambeer Kumar Singh (supra), wherein it is provided that complicity of the accused in case of forgery will have to be addressed only after a proper appreciation of evidence and such appreciation of evidence can be done only by undertaking the initial process. Therefore, trial is the only process, by which the evidence can be adduced and the truth can be found out.
28. Supreme Court in the case of Central Bureau of Investigation Vs. Aryan Singh and others, (2023) 18 SCC 399 has categorically held that at the stage of discharge and/or quashing of the criminal proceedings, while exercising the powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the High Court is not required to conduct the mini trial and adduce evidence on record as it has a very limited jurisdiction and is required to consider whether any sufficient material is available to proceed further against the accused for which the accused is required to be tried or not. From a bare perusal of the statements recorded under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C., prima facie the offence is made out as there is sufficient material available on record.
29. In view of the aforesaid discussion, this Court does not find any merit in the case.
30. All the three applications are accordingly rejected.
31. No order as to costs.
