S.K. Tripathi, J.@mdashHeard learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA appearing for the respondent No. 1 and also perused the record. None responded for the respondent No. 2. Counter and rejoinder affidavits have been exchanged.
2. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant was posted as Branch Manager in the Punjab National Bank, Branch Dattiyana, Police Station Simbhawli, District Ghaziabad on the relevant date. In that branch one Ghanshyam son of Randhir Singh had a Saving Bank account No. 1695, who died on 8.8.1999 leaving behind two daughters, namely Omwati and Mayawati. Respondent No. 2 is the son of the said Mayawati, who has also died. It is alleged that after the death of Ghanshyam Singh, the mother of the respondent No. 2 had given a written application in the bank on 22.8.1999 that the money outstanding in the account of deceased Ghanshyam Singh be not paid to any person without her consent. It is also alleged that the applicant, despite that application, paid the entire amount to Smt. Omwati, the other daughter of Ghanshyam Singh, without the consent of Mayawati. In this way the revisionist committed the offences under Sections 420,406 and 120B IPC.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the entire amount was paid to Smt. Omwati by the applicant after the death of Mayawati and not before her death on the basis of the affidavit of the respondent No. 2, his father and his sister and also on executing an indemnity bond and furnishing a certificate of the Pradhan. It was further submitted that there was a circular of the Punjab National Bank to make payment on the basis of the affidavit and certificate of the Pradhan. Therefore, the applicant acted in a bona fide manner without any criminal intent. There is no allegation that the applicant himself committed any embezzlement. It was further submitted that it is dispute between the legal heirs of the deceased Ghanshyam, which is of civil nature and, therefore, no criminal charge is made out.
4. Keeping in view the fact that the applicant was the Branch Manager of the concerned bank on the relevant date and he made the payment in accordance with the circular of the bank after obtaining the affidavit not only of respondent No. 2 but also of his father and sister besides taking indemnity bond and certificate of the Pradhan, therefore, no case is made out against the applicant under Section 420,406 and120B IPC.
5. There does not appear to be any dishonest intention on the part of the applicant, as the element of wrongful gain is lacking in favour of the applicant in this case. The applicant seems to have acted in a bona fide manner in discharge of official duties, therefore, the prosecution launched against him cannot be proceeded with. Continuance of the criminal proceeding against the applicant is nothing except an abuse of the process of the Court.
The application is allowed. Consequently, the proceeding of Criminal Case No. 74 of 2004 (State v. Lajpat Chandauliya) pending in the Court of Civil Judge (Junior Division), Gadhmutteshvar, District Ghaziabad are quashed.
