Rajesh Kumar Singh v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.19483 of 2013 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -255 Year- 2012 Thana -ROSERA District- SAMASTIPUR ======================================================= Rajesh Kumar Singh, S/O Kanhaiya Prasad Singh, Resident Of VillageMathurapur, P.O.- Punmadharampur, P.S.- Hathauri, District- Samastipur .... .... Petitioner

Versus

1. The State of Bihar

2. The Central Bank of India Through Kamleshwra Kumar Singh, S/O Late Deo Sarikhan Singh R/O Village- Goreya Kothi, P.S.- Goreya Kothi, District- Siwan (Loan Realization Officer)

3. The Branch Manager of Erot Branch (Dist- Samastipur) Central Bank of India .... .... Opposite Parties ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : M/S U.S.Singh, Advocate Mr. K. Pd. Singh, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Rana Randhir Singh, A.P.P. ======================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHAKRADHARI SHARAN SINGH ORAL JUDGMENT Date: 29-02-2016 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.

This application has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing of the First Information Report vide Rosera P.S. Case No. 255 of 2012, disclosing offences punishable under Sections 406 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code. Learned counsel for the petitioner has tried to submit that no offence under Sections 406 or 420 of the Indian Penal Code is made out on the basis of contents of the First Information Report inasmuch as there is no allegation against the petitioner that he had received an amount of Rs. 2,00,000/- and misappropriated the principal amount with interest which has been calculated to be 2.84

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.19483 of 2013 dt.29-02-2016 2/2 lakh.

I do not find much substance made on behalf of the petitioner in view of specific allegation in the First Information Report that the three F.I.R. named accused persons executed a sale deed with respect to the land, which they had mortgaged in favour of the Central Bank of India against the said loans advanced to them. It cannot be said, thus, that no offence punishable under the provisions of Indian Penal Code is made out on the basis of the contents of the First Information Report. I do not find any circumstance or reason requiring this Court to quash the First Information Report, itself in exercise of inherent power under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

It goes without saying that the petitioner shall be at liberty to raise plea or take any ground as raised/taken in the present application at any appropriate stage of framing of charge or trial, as may be permissible to him under law. Any observation made in the present order shall not be treated to be opinion/finding on merit if such plea is raised and ground is/are before the court below. This application is, accordingly, rejected.

(Chakradhari Sharan Singh, J) Vats/- U T