Madras High Court
The Branch Manager vs Veeramani on 15 July, 2022
Author: G.K.Ilanthiraiyan
Bench: G.K.Ilanthiraiyan
CRL.O.P.No.17210 of 2020
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 15.07.2022
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN
CRL.O.P.No.17210 of 2020
and
Crl.MP.No.6662 of 2020
1.The Branch Manager,
South Indian Bank,
Padur, Ulundurpet.
2.The Regional Manager,
Regional Office,
South Indian Bank,
Nungambakkam,
Chennai.
3.The Managing Director,
Registered Office,
South Indian Bank,
Thrissur, Kerala. ... Petitioners
Vs.
1.Veeramani
2.SHO, Thirunavalur,
Villupuram Police Station. ... Respondents
Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. praying
to set aside the order passed by Additional District judge (Fast Track Court),
Villupuram in Cr.R.P.No.23 of 2019 dated 17.02.2020 and consequently
confirm the order dated 28.02.2019 passed by Judicial Magistrate Court No.2,
Ulundurpettai, in C.M.P.No.2047 of 2018.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1/7
CRL.O.P.No.17210 of 2020
For Petitioners : Mr.M.L.Ganesh
For Respondents
For R2 : Mr.A.Gopinath
Government Advocate (Crl. Side)
ORDER
This petition has been filed to set aside the order passed by the learned Additional District judge (Fast Track Court), Villupuram in Cr.R.P.No.23 of 2019 dated 17.02.2020 and consequently, confirm the order dated 28.02.2019 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate Court No.2, Ulundurpettai, in C.M.P.No.2047 of 2018.
2. Heard both sides and perused the materials available on record.
3. The petitioners are proposed accused persons. The first respondent filed a petition under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C before the Judicial Magistrate Court No.2, Ulundurpet, seeking direction. The learned Judicial Magistrate, found that there was no primi facie and as such, the said petition was dismissed. Aggrieved over the same, the first respondent filed revision before the Appellate Court, and the same was allowed and the matter was remanded back to the Judicial Magistrate, to pass orders under Section 165(3) of Cr.P.C https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 2/7 CRL.O.P.No.17210 of 2020 and to conduct enquiry under Section 200 and 202 of Cr.P.C in accordance with law. Aggrieved by the same, the proposed accused persons/petitioners Bank filed this petition to set aside the order passed by the first Appellate Court.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the first respondent lodged a complaint alleging that he had opened a Savings Bank Account in A/C.No.89 on 18.04.1985 with the first petitioner/branch and he had maintained a balance of Rs.20,398/- till 1995. Thereafter, he had gone out of station as such, he could not withdraw the said balance amount. Thereafter, he caused notice to the petitioners on 19.10.2016 and 15.05.2017 respectively to return the said amount. It was not acted upon and as such, the first respondent lodged a complaint.
5. According to the petitioners, the first respondent applied for loan from the petitioners bank and the same was rejected, due to the reason that he is not residing in the address as mentioned in the loan application. Therefore, only to wreak vengeance against the petitioners, a false complaint has been foisted and further, the first respondent lodged this complaint after a period of twenty three years from the date of retrieval of the passbook in the year 1995. Post https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 3/7 CRL.O.P.No.17210 of 2020 migration to the Core Banking System in 2022, the practice of doing entries in the manual ledger was discontinued in the petitioners bank.
6. After introduction of Core Banking System in all the branches, whatever the balance available in the customers' account are duly transferred to the Core Banking System. As a matter of fact, on the date of transfer from manual ledger to core banking system, the alleged amount of Rs.20,398/- was not available in the first respondent's savings account, since already the said amount was withdrawn. Therefore, no offence is made out as against the petitioners.
7. The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) for the second respondent police submitted that admittedly, the petitioners, being proposed accused persons, even before registration of FIR, have no grounds to raise any objections for registration of FIR. In fact, as per the order passed by the Additional District Judge, (Fast Track Court), Villupuram, there was a direction to the learned Magistrate to pass orders either under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C or to conduct enquiry. Therefore, before even passing any order, the petitioners had come forward before this Court, challenging the direction issued by the Additional District Judge, (Fast Track Court), Villupuram. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 4/7 CRL.O.P.No.17210 of 2020 Accordingly, the second respondent is yet to take any action as directed by the Appellate Court, even before registration of FIR.
8. The petitioners being proposed accused persons, have no locus to raise any objections before registration of FIR. Therefore, this Court finds no illegality or infirmity in the order passed by the Court below. However, while considering the complaint lodged by the first respondent, the learned Judicial Magistrate is directed to consider the allegations made in the complaint and pass orders on merits and in accordance with law.
9. Accordingly, this criminal original petition stands dismissed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
15.07.2022 Index : Yes / No Speaking / Non Speaking order ata https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 5/7 CRL.O.P.No.17210 of 2020 To
1.The Station House Officer, Thirunavalur, Villupuram Police Station.
2.The Additional District Judge, (Fast Track Court), Villupuram.
3.The Judicial Magistrate Court No.2, Ulundurpet.
4.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 6/7 CRL.O.P.No.17210 of 2020 G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.
ata Crl.O.P.No.17210 of 2020 15.07.2022 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 7/7