On the companytrary, the appellant neither handed over the person who presented the cheque, to the police, number brought to the numberice of the companyplainant about its presentation.
It was further stated by the companyplainant that when he received a numberice dated 6th October, 2004 under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act from Neelam Rani companyaccused, number party before us stating that Cheque No.083697 one of the lose cheques for Rs.5,00,067/ as if issued by him towards the purchase of Kachi bricks and companyl from Neelam Brick Field, then he realized that there was some planned companyspiracy and the cheque book was number actually lost but was stolen and being misused by the accused for drawing various amounts from his bank account.
1132 has been lost, hence numberpayment on the lost cheques be made to any person and all those cheques may be cancelled Annexure P/1 .
Thus the appellant played a role in the companyspiracy, and therefore, the companyplainant lodged the companyplaint under the aforesaid sections of IPC against the appellant as well as other accused.
It is because of the involvement of the appellant in the companyspiracy he has number discharged his duties as Branch Manager with responsibility and acted against the instructions in the letter dated 17th May, 2004 only to harass the companyplainant and his family financially and mentally.
In the said companyplaint, the companyplainant respondent No.2, has totally denied any such transaction with Neelam Brick Field and alleged that the accused companyked up that transaction, hatched a companyspiracy with the bank employees for cheating him, and accordingly all the amounts of the companyplainant and his family have been looted.
According to the said companyplaint, the companyplainant was holding a Bank Account in the Ghaziabad District Co operative Bank, Maliwada, Ghaziabad where the appellant was the Branch Manager.
Hence, the companyplaint filed by respondent No.2 is misconceived and it does number attract any of the offences alleged against the appellant as it was filed only with vexatious and oblique motive.
Before us, the main companytention of the learned senior companynsel for the appellant is that the appellant has numberhing to do with the alleged offence and his name was unnecessarily dragged into the criminal companyplaint.
P.C. and issued summons against the accused under Section 204 Cr.
Only to create a defence against those cases under the Negotiable Instruments Act, the companyplaint has been filed by the companyplainant with mala fide intention.
The main allegation levelled against the appellant was that when a written information had already been given on 17th May, 2004 to the appellant who was the Branch Manager of the Bank number to honour the lost cheques and cancel them, he should have performed his duties with utmost responsibility and when the stolen lost cheque was presented, he should have given the information of its presentation to the police as well as to the companyplainant.
6334 of 2006 and the Allahabad High Court has stayed further proceedings in the Complaint Case.
The Bank was also informed in writing on 17th May, 2004 itself that duly signed cheque book of Account No.
P.C. directed the appellant to file application for his discharge before the trial Court.
Then the appellant moved the High Court under Section 482 Cr.
It was the case of the appellant that he came to know about the criminal companyplaint only when the number bailable warrant has been issued against him because from August 2004 to January 2007, during which period the proceedings in the criminal companyplaint were going on, he was posted at Dhaulana Branch, therefore, the summons were never served upon him.
P.C. Two other companyaccused challenged the summoning order before the High Court in a Criminal Miscellaneous Application No.
083697 was presented in the Bank on 2nd August, 2004, it was number cleared by the Bank in view of the written instruction given by the companyplainant and numberloss was caused to the companyplainant at the hands of the appellant.
But, by the impugned order dated 6th November, 2012 the High Court refused to quash the criminal proceedings against the appellant.
After registering the Complaint Case, the learned Magistrate recorded statements under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.
When they came to know that their bag companytaining signed cheques and other papers was missing, number knowing the misdeed of the accused, a search has been undertaken for the lost bag companytaining signed cheques and also lodged a written report on 17th May, 2004 at Sihani Gate Police Station to that effect.
P.C. against the appellant herein and three other accused who are number parties before us, invoking Sections 34, 379, 411, 417, 418, 420, 467, 458 and 477 IPC.
V. RAMANA.
The facts relevant for the disposal of this appeal, in a nutshell, are that on 21st March, 2005, respondent No.2 herein filed a private companyplaint Annexure P/2 in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh under Section 156 3 Cr.
J. Leave granted.
Afterwards, the appellant was transferred from Maliwara Branch to Dhaulana Branch on 21st August, 2004 and he was again transferred to Maliwara Branch in January 2007 where he remained till August 2011.
He further companytended that the companyplainant in his letter dated 17th May, 2004 Annexure P/1 addressed to the appellant has numberhere asked him to inform to the police or to give companymunication to him when the cheque is presented.
P.C. to quash the proceedings against him.
It was alleged in the companyplaint that taking advantage of the innocence of the companyplainant and his brother, the accused, mischievously obtained their signatures on blank cheques and companymitted theft of their hand bag in which the signed cheque book was kept.
Subsequently, the High Court dismissed the Criminal Miscellaneous Application, and hence, number bailable warrant has been issued against the appellant on 3rd October, 2012.
