MEENU PRAKASH BHANTU Versus STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ANR
MEENU PRAKASH BHANTU Versus STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ANR
Landmark Cases of India / सुप्रीम कोर्ट के ऐतिहासिक फैसले
[Non-Reportable]
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 738 OF 2023
(@ SLP(CRL.) NO.9665 OF 2017)
MEENU PRAKASH BHANTU …Appellant
Versus
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ANR. …Respondents
J U D G M E N T
Rajesh Bindal, J.
1. The Order dated 12th October, 2017 passed by the
High Court for Judicature at Allahabad is under challenge
before this Court. Vide the aforesaid order, the Criminal
Miscellaneous Application filed by the appellant under
Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for
short “CrPC”) for quashing of the orders dated 4th July, 2017
passed by the Sessions Judge, Aligarh in Criminal Revision
No.306 of 2017 and the order dated 29th August, 2017
1
passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Aligarh,
was disposed of by the impugned order.
2. While examining the issue in detail, a brief
narration of the facts of the case would be relevant:
The Respondent No.2/complainant lodged FIR bearing
Case Crime No.170/2014 dated 20th June, 2014 at Police
Station Gonda, District Aligah, Uttar Pradesh. It was with
the allegation that ₹55,20,000/- (Rupees fifty five lakhs
twenty thousand only) were embezzled from his account. A
perusal of the contents of the FIR shows that no one was
named as an accused therein. He merely stated therein
that there were certain unauthorized withdrawals from his
bank account. He had never requested for issuance of a
new cheque book, however, still a new cheque book was
issued. It was sent by registered post to the complainant
but was not delivered to him. Some unauthorized person
collected the same. Though earlier the complainant was
receiving SMS from the bank for all the transactions but
suddenly it got stopped. He came to know about the
cheating when on 19th June, 2014 he got entries done in his
pass book. After investigation, charge sheet was filed
2
against Jagpal Singh, s/o Ghasiram, Clerk (Assistant) SBI
Branch, Gonda district, Aligarh and Ajeet Kumar Sharma s/o
Bhupendra Sharma, SBI Branch Gonda. During the course
of trial, the appellant got his statement recorded. He
reiterated the stand taken by him in complaint filed to the
police on the basis of which FIR was registered. He stated
that the cheating has been done in connivance with the
employees of the bank and the Post Office. He admitted in
his cross-examination that the amount of ₹ 55,20,000/-
(Rupees fifty five lakhs twenty thousand only) which was
withdrawn from his bank account has been returned to him
by the bank.
3. On the basis of the statement made by the
complainant which was in line with the complaint filed to
the police, an application was filed under Section 319 Cr.PC
by the prosecution for summoning the present appellant,
Accountant S.D.Sharma and Bank Manager M.L.Verma,
State Bank of India and the then Post Master of Post Office,
Gonda. The same was rejected by the Additional Chief
Judicial Magistrate vide order dated 6th May, 2017 finding
that sufficient material was not available to summon the
3
accused. The order was challenged by the prosecution by
filing revision. The learned Sessions Judge vide order dated
4
th July, 2017 allowed the Revision Petition and remitted the
matter to the Trial Court for disposal afresh after affording
opportunity of hearing to the parties. Thereafter, vide order
dated 29th August, 2017 the learned Additional Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Aligarh allowed the application and directed for
summoning of the present appellant, Accountant S.D.
Sharma and Bank Manager M.L. Verma and the then Post
Master of Gonda Post Office.
4. In the aforesaid order, no reasons were assigned
except stating that for the reasons stating by the Sessions
Judge in his order by which the matter was remitted back
for consideration afresh, the application is allowed and the
present appellant, Accountant S.D.Sharma, Bank Manager
M.L.Verma and the then Post Master of Gonda Post Office
were directed to be summoned. The appellant being
aggrieved by the aforesaid order approached the High Court
at Allahabad. The High Court vide the impugned order
dismissed the Criminal Miscellaneous Application filed
under Section 482 CrPC only with general observations and
4
without noticing the facts of the case. The impugned order
merely mentioned that no illegality or impropriety was
found in the order which could persuade the High Court to
interfere. The order reflects non-application of judicial
mind. The order is under challenge before this Court.
5. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant
submitted that the appellant was merely working as a
Miscellaneous Clerk in State Bank of India, Gonda Branch,
District Aligarh, Uttar Pradesh. If there was any fraudulent
withdrawal from the account of the complainant, the
appellant cannot be held responsible for the same. The
only allegation against the appellant is that once he had
supplied printout of the statement of account of the
complainant which according to him was not legible or there
was some mis-printing. The appellant cannot be held
responsible for treating his part of the crime. The High
Court had failed to appreciate the contentions and it merely
passed a general order without discussing the facts of the
case. The order passed by the Additional Chief Judicial
Magistrate which again was totally non-speaking. He
merely referred to the order passed by the Sessions Judge
5
challenging an earlier order passed by the Additional Chief
Judicial Magistrate dated 6th May, 2017. The Sessions Judge
had accepted the Revision Petition with certain observations
and remitted the matter back to the Trial Court for passing
fresh orders and the matter was required to be considered
on its own merits by the Trial Court.
6. In support of the arguments, reliance was placed
upon the Constitution Bench judgment in the case of
Hardeep Singh and Ors. Vs. State of Punjab & Ors.,
(2014) 3 SCC 92.
7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the
respondents submitted that it is a case in which there was
fraudulent withdrawal of ₹55,20,000/- (Rupees fifty five
lakhs twenty thousand only). The role of the appellant is
clearly established. When the complainant received a
message regarding dispatch of a cheque book of his
account, he immediately approached the bank as he had
never requested for issuance of a cheque book. However,
no satisfactory reply was given by the bank. When the
complainant requested for a copy of the statement of his
account with the bank, statement supplied was either
6
illegible or there was mis-printing and as a result of which
the complainant could not make out as to what transactions
had been done from his account. The appellant being the
person responsible for supplying copies of the account, he
is equally responsible in playing fraud.
8. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and
perused the relevant material placed on record.
9. The parameters on which additional accused
could be summoned in an application filed under Section
319 CrPC are well settled in the case of Hardeep Singh
and Ors.’s case (supra) which are as under:
“105. Power u/s 319 CrPC is a discretionary
and an extraordinary power. It is to be
exercised sparingly and only in those cases
where the circumstances of the case so
warrant. It is not to be exercised because
the magistrate or the sessions judge is of
the opinion that some other person may also
be guilty of committing that offence. Only
where strong and cogent evidence occurs
against a person from the evidence laid
before the court that such power should be
exercised and not in a casual and cavalier
manner.
7
106. Thus we hold that though only a prima
facie case is to be established from the
evidence laid before the court, not
necessarily tested on the anvil of crossexamination, it requires much strong
evidence that near probability of his
complicity. The test that has to be applied is
one which is more than prima facie case as
exercised at the time of framing of charge,
but short of satisfaction to an extent that the
evidence, if goes unrebutted, would lead to
conviction. In the absence of such
satisfaction, the court should refrain from
exercising power u/S 319 CrPC.”
(emphasis supplied)
10. In Sagar vs. State of U.P. & Anr. (2022) 6
SCC 389, it is stated as under:
“9. The Constitution Bench has given a caution
that power under Section 319 of the Code is a
discretionary and extraordinary power which
should be exercised sparingly and only in those
cases where the circumstances of the case so
8
warrant and the crucial test as notice above
has to be applied is one which is more that
prima facie case as exercised at the time of
framing of charge, but short of satisfaction to
an extent that the evidence, if goes
unrebutted, would lead to conviction….”
11. If the case in hand is examined on the parameters
laid down in the aforesaid judgments, in our opinion, no
case is made out against the appellant at this stage for his
summoning as an additional accused merely because he
once had supplied a copy of the statement of account to
the complainant which was either dim or mis-printed. Based
on this material, opinion cannot be formed that he was in
connivance with the accused who allegedly indulged in
cheating the complainant by fraudulent withdrawal from his
account. He is not authorized either to approve withdrawal
or to deal with the account of the complainant.
9
12. For the reasons stated aforesaid, the present appeal is
allowed. The impugned order dated 12th October, 2017
passed by the High Court is set aside and the application
filed by the prosecution for summoning the present
appellant as an additional accused is dismissed.
….………………J.
[Abhay S. Oka]
….………………J.
[Rajesh Bindal]
New Delhi
March 16, 2023
10
Comments
Post a Comment