M.N. OJHA & ORS. versus ALOK KUMAR SRIVASTAV & ANR.

Citation: [2009] 13 S.C.R. 444 · Decided: 21-08-2009 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: R.V. RAVEENDRAN · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

[2009] 13 (ADDL.) S.C.R. 444 
A 
M.N. OJHA & ORS. 
+ 
v. 
ALOK KUMAR SRIVASTAV & ANR. 
(Criminal Appeal No.1582 of 2009) 
B 
AUGUST 21, 2009 
[R.V. RAVEENDRAN AND B. SUDERSHAN REDDY, JJ.] 
CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973: 
-..,,.. ... 
c 
s.482 - Powers of High Court - Explained - Complaint 
case by one of the guarantor against bank officials alleging 
criminal breach of trust on their part in encashing FDRs 
offered by guarantors as security- Judicial Magistrate issuing 
summons to bank officials - Petition uls 482 by Bank officials 
D seeking to quash the proceedings - Summarily dismissed by 
High Court.- Held: The averments made in the complaint do 
..._ 
~ 
nC?t reveal commission of any offence by bank officials, who 
were only taking steps to realize the loan amount - The 
Magistrate did not apply his mind and took cognizance of the 
E case without considering allegations on merits - High Court 
abdicated its duty in refusing to exercise its jurisdiction u/s.482 
though the case required its interference in order to prevent 
abuse of the process of court - A clear case is made out for 
• 
interference by Supreme Court - Order of High Court set 
y 
aside - Criminal proceedings against bank officials quashed 
F - Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 136. 
Respondent no.1 and others stood guarantors for a 
proprietary concern which obtained loan from the bank 
of which the appellants were the employees. When the 
G borrower defaulted in repayment of the. loan amount, the 
bank informed the borrower as also the guarantors and 
-~ ~ 
later field an FIR against them for cheating and 
misappropriation .of hypothecated goods and also 
initiated proceedings under the Public Demand Recovery 
H 
444 
M.N. OJHA & ORS. v. ALOK KUMAR SRIVASTAV & 445 
ANR. 
+ 
Act for recovery of balance amount after adjustment of A 
fixed deposit amounts placed as security by guarantors. 
Respondent no.1 filed a complaint case before the 
Judicial Magistrate against bank officials alleging 
offences punishable u/ss. 409, 422, 476 and ,120-B IPC 
and stated that the Branch Manager in conspiracy with 
B 
the brother of the borrower who was also an employee 
of the bank allowed operation of the account and 
t --'(' 
committed criminal breach of trust. The Judicial 
Magistrate took cognizance of the complaint and directed 
non-bailable warrants to issue against the bank officials. c 
The petition filed u/s.482 Cr. P.C. by the bank Officials 
having been summarily dismissed, they filed the appeal. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
~ 
HELD: 1.1. Normally, the High Court, in exercise of D 
... its jurisdiction u/s 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 
1973, would not intervene in the criminal proceedings at 
the preliminary stage/when the investigation/enquiry is 
pending. But, at the same time the High Court cannot 
refuse to exercise its jurisdiction if the interest of justice E 
so required where the allegations made in the FIR or 
complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on 
... 
the basis of which no fair-minded and informed observer 
'i" can ever reach a just and proper conclusion as to the 
existence of sufficient grounds for proceeding. In such 
F 
cases refusal to exercise the jurisdiction may equally 
result in injustice more particularly in cases where the 
complainant sets the criminal law in motion with a view 
to exert pressure and harass the persons arrayed as 
accused in the complaint. [Para 15] [454-C-G] 
G 
I- .+--
State of Kamataka v. L. Muniswamy (1977) 2 SCC 699 
and Kurukshetra University v. State of Haryana (1977) 4 SCC 
451, relied on. 
H 
A 
446 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [~009] 13 (ADDL.) S.C.R. 
1.2. The instant case is one where the averments and.. + 
allegations made in the complaint do not disclose· 
commission of any offence by the appellants or any one 
of them. They were merely discharging their duties to 
realize and recover the amounts due to the bank from the 
B borrower as well as the guarantors. Sequence of events 
undoubtedly suggests that the criminal proceedings have 
been maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive of 
wreaking vengeance on the appellants and with a view ')- ., 
to spite them due to personal grudge. It was clearly 
c intended to prevent the public servants from discharging 
their duties. The SDJM took cognizance of the case and 
issued non-bailable warrants against the appellants 
without even examining the allegations and averments 
made in the complaint filed by the respondent-
.

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.