Punjab-Haryana High Court
Prabhjot Singh vs State Of Punjab on 17 October, 2022
Author: Jasjit Singh Bedi
Bench: Jasjit Singh Bedi
CRM-M-43344-2018 -1-
(256) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-43344-2018
Date of decision : 17.10.2022
PRABHJOT SINGH
... Petitioner
Versus
STATE OF PUNJAB
...Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASJIT SINGH BEDI
Present: Mr. Mayank Mathur, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Kirat Singh Sidhu, D.A.G, Punjab.
Mr. K.S. Baniana, Advocate for respondent No.2.
JASJIT SINGH BEDI, J. (ORAL)
The prayer in the present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is for quashing of the orders dated 11.04.2018 (Annexure P-1) passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Rajpura, whereby an application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. to summon the petitioner as an additional accused in FIR No.267 dated 11.10.2021 has been allowed and the order in revision of the learned Additional Sessions, Patiala dated 28.08.2018 (Annexure P-2) whereby the said order (Annexure P-1) has been affirmed.
2. The brief facts of the case are that one Bansi Lal complainant/respondent No.2 father of Paras Gera filed a complaint before the police authorities including IG Zone-1, Patiala. Briefly stated the sum and substance of the complaint by Bansi Lal was that he wanted to send his son Paras Gera to England and he therefore wanted to open a bank account. For that reason he met Maneet Singh Bindra resident of Panchkula. Thereafter Maneet Singh Bindra sent one person with Bansi Lal and Paras Gera to Rajpura from Panchkula. Thereafter an account 1 of 21 ::: Downloaded on - 18-10-2022 06:45:48 ::: CRM-M-43344-2018 -2- was duly opened in Axis Bank Rajpura. Maneet Singh Bindra had thereafter took the complete cheque book of the account at Rajpura after getting the same signed from Paras Gera. Thereafter Maneet Singh Bindra got deposited a sum of Rs.7 lacs in the account of Paras Gera who then went to England. Subsequently Maneet Singh Bindra took out all the money from the account of Paras Gera. Maneet Singh Bindra thereafter also kept on getting amount deposited in the accounts of Paras Gera from Australia and he used to withdraw it through cheques which were given by Paras Gera. The account of Paras Gera had been misused by Maneet Singh Bindra and then Maneet Singh Bindra had returned two cheques back to Bansi Lal. A case was sought to be registered against Maneet Singh Bindra for misusing the cheques of Paras Gera. The original complaint is annexed as Annexure P-3 to the petition.
3. Pursuant to the registration of the FIR, whereby the petitioner is not named, an investigation was conducted and during the course of investigation, the names of three other accused namely, Sunil Jaggi, Director of Oscan Consultant India Ltd., Prabhjot Singh (the petitioner) and Tejinder Singh were added.
4. The petitioner was arrested and after being in custody for about 02 months was granted the concession of bail by this Court vide order dated 08.12.2011 (Annexure P-4). Thereafter, vide a detailed inquiry conducted by the Superintendent of Police (D), Patiala the petitioner was found to be innocent. The copy of the inquiry report dated 25.12.2011 is annexed as Annexure P-6 to the petition.
Pursuant thereto, the report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. was submitted against Maneet Singh Bindra and Tejinder Singh. Sunil Jaggi 2 of 21 ::: Downloaded on - 18-10-2022 06:45:48 ::: CRM-M-43344-2018 -3- was also found to be liable but the report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. was not submitted against him because by that time he could not be arrested. The copy of the report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. is annexed as Annexure P-5 to the petition.
5. After the presentation of the challan as aforesaid, the prosecution evidence began and Kamaldeep Batra was examined as PW-1, who was the Operations Manager Axis Bank, Rajpura Branch and who had dealt with the cheques of Para Gera and got the same encashed. Thereafter, the complainant-Bansi Lal was examined as PW-2, aggrieved persons Puneet Kumar Sharma and Gurjant Singh as PW-3 and PW-4 and pursuant thereto, an application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. was moved on 14.03.2018 by the P.P. to summon Sunil Jaggi, Director Oscan Consultant India Ltd. and Prabhjot Singh (the petitioner), Manager Axis Bank. As per the said application, since PW2-complainant Bansi Lal, PW3-Puneet Kumar Sharma and PW4-Gurjant Singh had stated in their examination-in-chief that the above-said accused had also actively participated in the commission of offence, they ought to be summoned.
6. Based on the said application, the petitioner and Sunil Jaggi, Director Oscan Consultant India Ltd. came to be summoned vide order dated 11.04.2018 (Annexure P-1). The Court found that PW-1 had specifically named the petitioner as well as Sunil Jaggi, Director Oscan Consultant India Ltd. Further, PW2-Bansi Lal, PW3-Puneet Kumar Sharma and PW4-Gurjant Singh had also named the petitioner and Sunil Jaggi, Director Oscan Consultant India Ltd. and therefore they were liable to face prosecution along with the co-accused Maneet Singh Bindra.
3 of 21 ::: Downloaded on - 18-10-2022 06:45:48 ::: CRM-M-43344-2018 -4-
7. Against the aforementioned order of summoning, a revision petition was preferred by the petitioner before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Patiala. The contention raised by the petitioner was that the offence, if any had been committed by Maneet Singh Bindra who in fact used cheques to withdraw all the money from the account of the son of the complainant-Bansi Lal. The petitioner remained posted as Branch Head, Rajpura from 01.05.2010 to 25.05.2011 and most of the transactions made by Maneet Singh Bindra were not during his tenure. It was contended that the petitioner only had a nominal role to perform while opening the account of the son of the complainant and that he had no dealing with the transactions made in the account. He had also been exonerated by the Investigating Agency and further, while PW2-Bansi Lal merely referred to the role played by the petitioner of opening the account, PW3-Puneet Kumar Sharma and PW4-Gurjant Singh did not name the petitioner and in fact stated that they had never visited the Rajpura Branch of which the petitioner was the Manager. It was thus, contended that the impugned order of summoning order was passed in a mechanical manner and ought to be set aside. However, after considering the arguments of the petitioner and the State, the Additional Sessions Judge, Patiala vide order dated 28.08.2018 (Annexure P-2) dismissed the revision petition holding that the witnesses had specifically deposed against the petitioner, the inquiry report (Annexure P-6) in the favour of the petitioner could not be looked at and prima facie there was material to summon the petitioner and as such no fault could be found with the order dated 11.04.2018 vide which the petitioner and his co-accused were summoned. Therefore, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, 4 of 21 ::: Downloaded on - 18-10-2022 06:45:48 ::: CRM-M-43344-2018 -5- Patiala vide order dated 28.08.2018 (Annexure P-2) dismissed the said revision petition.
These two orders are under challenge before this Court in the present petition.
8. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. clearly establishes that it was Maneet Singh Bindra and Tejinder Singh who had actually committed the offence in question. The role of the petitioner was only to the extent that at the time when the account of Paras Gera was opened Prabhjot Singh (the petitioner) was the Manager of the Axis Bank at Rajpura. He contends that for all the transactions done in the bank account of Paras Gera in Axis Bank, Rajpura, there was no signature of the petitioner- Prabhjot Singh as Manager and nor were the signatures required. In fact, the Branch Manager was neither required to nor could he possibly looked into each and every transactions which took place on a daily basis in the numerous accounts which were held in the branch. He contends that in the original complaint as well, the name of the petitioner does not figure and it was during the course of investigation that the name of the petitioner cropped up without any specific role having been attributed to him.
He contends that the complainant-Bansi Lal in his examination-in-chief has only stated that the petitioner as the Manager of Axis Bank, Rajpura Branch had opened the account of his son. In fact, in his cross-examination complainant-Bansi Lal has categorically stated that he did not know the petitioner personally nor dealt with him ever and that he had no dispute with him. He contends that PW-3 and PW-4 5 of 21 ::: Downloaded on - 18-10-2022 06:45:48 ::: CRM-M-43344-2018 -6- were persons aggrieved have also stated that they had never visited the Rajpura Branch. He contends that in the light of the depositions of PW-2, PW-3 and PW-4, no case for summoning of the petitioner is made out and the finding of the Courts below that the petitioner had been named and a specific role attributed to him thereby necessitating his summoning his fallacious.
He contends that the application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. was not even moved by any of the witnesses but by the P.P. which also shows that so far as the petitioner is concerned, none of the witnesses/aggrieved persons had any grievance qua him.
He contends that both the Courts below have not considered properly the principles for allowing an application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India to the facts of the present case. It has been laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in a Catena of judgments including Hardeep Singh Versus State of Punjab 2014(1) RCR (Criminal) 623, as well as Brijendera & others Versus State of Rajsthan, 2017(3) RCR (Criminal) 374 that the power under Section 319 Cr.P.C. is not 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 when strong and cogent evidence is available against a person from the evidence led before the Court that the power should be exercised. It has further been specifically held in the case of Brijendera Singh (supra) that the test that has to be applied is that there must be more than a prima facie case as is required at the time of framing of charge. Therefore, the opinion which is to be formed is that there must be stronger evidence than mere probability of his complicity.
6 of 21 ::: Downloaded on - 18-10-2022 06:45:48 ::: CRM-M-43344-2018 -7- In the present case a perusal of the entire record would show that no such evidence has come on record nor have the courts below recorded any such satisfaction or pointed out any such evidence on the file. In fact, simply stating that the petitioner has been named by witnesses which also is factually incorrect would not be a ground to exercise power under Section 319 Cr.P.C.
It is thus contended that the impugned order of summoning dated 11.04.2018 (Annexure P-1) as also the order in revision dated 28.08.2018 (Annexure P-2) ought to be quashed in the interest of justice.
9. On the other hand, the learned State counsel contends that there was sufficient evidence to summon the petitioner along with the accused facing trial i.e. Maneet Singh Bindra. The name of the petitioner figures in the deposition of the complainant-Bansi Lal and he being the Manager of Axis Bank, Rajpura cannot be absolved of his liability. He further contends that the inquiry report exonerating the petitioner has no evidentiary value in the eyes of law and is not to be considered at the time of adjudication of an application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. He thus contends that there was no merit in the petition which ought to be dismissed.
10. The learned counsel for respondent No.2-complainant, however, does not dispute the fact that the name of the petitioner does not figure in the original complaint and that no specific role has been attributed to him by respondent No.2-complainant. He also does not dispute the fact that in his cross-examination, the complainant-Bansi Lal PW-2 has exonerated the petitioner.
11. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length.
7 of 21 ::: Downloaded on - 18-10-2022 06:45:48 ::: CRM-M-43344-2018 -8-
12. Before proceeding further in the matter, it would be apposite to refer to the provisions of Section 319 Cr.P.C.
Section 319 Cr.P.C, reads ad under:-
"319. Power to proceed against other persons appearing to be guilty of offence.
(1) Where, in the course of any inquiry into, or trial of, an offence, it appears from the evidence that any person not being the accused has committed any offence for which such person could be tried together with the accused, the Court may proceed against such person for the offence which he appears to have committed.
(2) Where such person is not attending the Court, he may be arrested or summoned, as the circumstances of the case may require, for the purpose aforesaid. (3) Any person attending the Court, although not under arrest or upon a summons, may be detained by such Court for the purpose of the inquiry into, or trial of, the offence which he appears to have committed. (4) Where the Court proceeds against any person under sub- section (1), then-
(a) the proceedings in respect of such person shall be commenced a fresh, and the witnesses re-heard;
(b) subject to the provisions of clause (a), the case may proceed as if such person had been an accused person when the Court took cognizance of the offence upon which the inquiry or trial was commenced."
13. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Hardeep Singh Versus State of Punjab & others, 2014(1) R.C.R. (Criminal) 623, held as under:-
"Question No. IV 8 of 21 ::: Downloaded on - 18-10-2022 06:45:48 ::: CRM-M-43344-2018 -9- Q.IV What is the nature of the satisfaction required to invoke the power under Section 319 Cr.P.C. to arraign an accused? Whether the power under Section 319 (1) Cr.P.C. can be exercised only if the court is satisfied that the accused summoned will in all likelihood be convicted?
A. Though under Section 319(4)(b) Cr.P.C. the accused subsequently impleaded is to be treated as if he had been an accused when the Court initially took cognizance of the offence, the degree of satisfaction that will be required for summoning a person under Section 319 Cr.P.C. would be the same as for framing a charge. The difference in the degree of satisfaction for summoning the original accused and a subsequent accused is on account of the fact that the trial may have already commenced against the original accused and it is in the course of such trial that materials are disclosed against the newly summoned accused. Fresh summoning of an accused will result in delay of the trial-therefore the degree of satisfaction for summoning the accused (original and subsequent) has to be different."
[emphasis supplied] The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Brijendra Singh & others Versus State of Rajasthan, 2017(3) R.C.R. (Criminal) 374, held as under:-
"11. In Hardeep Singh's case, the Constitution Bench has also settled the controversy on the issue as to whether the word 'evidence' used in Section 319(1) Cr.P.C. has been used in a comprehensive sense and indicates the evidence collected during investigation or the word 'evidence' is limited to the evidence recorded during trial. It is held that it is that material, after cognizance is taken by the Court, that is available to it while making an inquiry into or trying an 9 of 21 ::: Downloaded on - 18-10-2022 06:45:48 ::: CRM-M-43344-2018 -10- offence, which the court can utilise or take into consideration for supporting reasons to summon any person on the basis of evidence adduced before the Court. The word 'evidence' has to be understood in its wider sense, both at the stage of trial and even at the stage of inquiry. It means that the power to proceed against any person after summoning him can be exercised on the basis of any such material as brought forth before it. At the same time, this Court cautioned that the duty and obligation of the Court becomes more onerous to invoke such powers consciously on such material after evidence has been led during trial. The Court also clarified that 'evidence' under Section 319 Cr.P.C. could even be examination-in-chief and the Court is not required to wait till such evidence is tested on cross-examination, as it is the satisfaction of the Court which can be gathered from the reasons recorded by the Court in respect of complicity of some other person(s) not facing trial in the offence.
12. The moot question, however, is the degree of satisfaction that is required for invoking the powers under Section 319 Cr.P.C. and the related question is as to in what situations this power should be exercised in respect of a person named in the FIR but not charge- sheeted. These two aspects were also specifically dealt with by the Constitution Bench in Hardeep Singh's case and answered in the following manner:
"95. At the time of taking cognizance, the court has to see whether a prima facie case is made out to proceed against the accused. Under Section 319 Cr.P.C., though the test of prima facie case is the same, the degree of satisfaction that is required is much stricter. A two-Judge Bench of this Court in Vikas v. State of Rajasthan [2013(4) RCR (Criminal) 948: 2013(6) Recent Apex Judgments (R.A.J.) 356: (2014) 3 SCC 321], held that on 10 of 21 ::: Downloaded on - 18-10-2022 06:45:48 ::: CRM-M-43344-2018 -11- the objective satisfaction of the court a person may be "arrested" or "summoned", as the circumstances of the case may require, if it appears from the evidence that any such person not being the accused has committed an offence for which such person could be tried together with the already arraigned accused persons. xx xx xx
105. Power under Section 319 Cr.P.C. 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 led before the court that such power should be exercised and not in a casual and cavalier manner.
106. Thus, we hold that though only a prima facie case is to be established from the evidence led before the court, not necessarily tested on the anvil of cross-examination, it requires much stronger evidence than mere 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 under Section 319 Cr.P.C. In Section 319 Cr.P.C. the purpose of providing if "it appears from the evidence that any person not being the accused has committed any offence" is clear from the words "for which such person could 11 of 21 ::: Downloaded on - 18-10-2022 06:45:48 ::: CRM-M-43344-2018 -12- be tried together with the accused". The words used are not "for which such person could be convicted". There is, therefore, no scope for the court acting under Section 319 Cr.P.C. to form any opinion as to the guilt of the accused.
(emphasis supplied)
13. In order to answer the question, some of the principles enunciated in Hardeep Singh's case may be recapitulated:
Power under Section 319 Cr.P.C. can be exercised by the trial court at any stage during the trial, i.e., before the conclusion of trial, to summon any person as an accused and face the trial in the ongoing case, once the trial court finds that there is some 'evidence' against such a person on the basis of which evidence it can be gathered that he appears to be guilty of offence. The 'evidence' herein means the material that is brought before the Court during trial. Insofar as the material/evidence collected by the IO at the stage of inquiry is concerned, it can be utilised for corroboration and to support the evidence recorded by the Court to invoke the power under Section 319 Cr.P.C. No doubt, such evidence that has surfaced in examination-in-chief, without cross- examination of witnesses, can also be taken into consideration. However, since it is a discretionary power given to the Court under Section 319 Cr.P.C. and is also an extraordinary one, same has to be exercised sparingly and only in those cases where the circumstances of the case so warrants. The degree of satisfaction is more than the degree which is warranted at the time of framing of the charges against others in respect of whom charge sheet was filed. Only where strong and cogent evidence occurs against a person from the evidence led before the Court that such power should be exercised. It is not to 12 of 21 ::: Downloaded on - 18-10-2022 06:45:48 ::: CRM-M-43344-2018 -13- be exercised in a casual or a cavalier manner. The prima facie opinion which is to be formed requires stronger evidence than mere probability of his complicity."
[emphasis supplied]
14. Coming back to the facts of the present case, it would be pertinent to note that the petitioner was the Manager of the Axis Bank, Rajpura at the time when the account of Paras Gera son of the complainant was opened at the said branch only. The name of the petitioner figures firstly during the course of investigation, pursuant to which he had been exonerated and thereafter in the testimony of the complainant-Bansi Lal/respondent No.2. Even in the said testimony, no specific role whatsoever has been attributed to the petitioner and further, in the cross-examination of the complainant-Bansi/respondent No.2, the petitioner has clearly been exonerated. The relevant extract of the testimony of the complainant-respondent No.2 are reproduced hereinbelow:-
"During enquiry, I have recorded my supplementary statement. When I had submitted the complaint to the Police, at that time, I was distressed. I came to know that the account of my son Paras Gera has been misused, in the said act, Tajinder Singh, resident of Chandigarh, Travel Agent Sunil Jaggi, who is from Chandigarh, Sunil Jaggi was Director of Oscan Travel Consultants India Ltd., Branch Chandigarh, whose office is located at S.C.O. 11, Sector 17-E, Chandigarh, who is doing the work of Travel Agent and doing the work of sending the person to foreign countries. In the year 2010, myself and my son Paras Gera met Sunil Jaggi, Director at his Office at Chandigarh. Sunil Jaggi told that if you want to send 13 of 21 ::: Downloaded on - 18-10-2022 06:45:48 ::: CRM-M-43344-2018 -14- you son abroad, then Rupees 7.00 lakhs has to be shown in his account. We told that we are not having the amount of Rs.7.00 lakhs. Sunil Jaggi asked us that I will get the arrangement of money made from my friend, Muneet Bindra. Sunil Jaggi sent us to Muneet Bindra in AXIS Bank, Sector 35, Chandigarh, where I and my son Paras Gera met Muneet Bindra. Muneet Bindra told that I will give you a loan of Rs.7.00 lakhs. That you have to give me Rs.42,000/- as interest of two months and also give the original Registry (Sale Deed) of your house. We accepted the condition of Muneet Bindra, and gave Rs.42,000/- and original Registry (Sale Deed) of our house to him. Muneet Bindra sent his person along with myself and my son from Chandigarh to Rajpura, where by taking us to AXIS Bank, the account of my son Paras Gera was opened. The Manager of AXIS Bank, Rajpura Branch opened the account of my son by getting Rs.2,700/-, deposited. The cheque book of account of my son was also issued to us. On different dates, I have got recorded my statements. Prabhjot Singh son of Jasveer Singh was the Manager of the Bank, who was posted in the Branch of AXIS Bank. Muneet Bindra was the Branch Manager in AXIS Bank. Tajinder Singh son of Kulbir Singh, resident of Chandigarh, Sunil Jaggi, Director Oscan Consultant India, Sector 17, Chandigarh, resident of House Number 143, Sector 9, Chandigarh, in collusion with each other, by depositing lakhs of rupees in the account of my son Paras Gera, by misusing the blank signed cheques given by my son, have committed an embezzlement. I identify the accused Muneet Bindra present in the Court. The accused Tajinder Singh, Sunil Jaggi, Prabhjot Singh are not present in the Court today. My son has sent an E-mail to the Bank 14 of 21 ::: Downloaded on - 18-10-2022 06:45:48 ::: CRM-M-43344-2018 -15- from England, that the copy of the afore-mentioned E-mail has been seen on the Judicial File, which is Mark 'A'. From the afore-stated E-mail, I identify the signatures of my son. The afore-mentioned E-mail was sent by my son to the Bank. We told our son that Muneet Bindra is misusing your account."
The cross-examination of respondent No.2- complainant/Bansi Lal is as under:-
"The complaint Ex.PW1/A has been filed by me before IG Zonal, Patiala. It is correct in the complaint Ex.PW1/A, the name of any Prabhjot Singh is nowhere mentioned and I have not moved against said Prabhjot Singh. Today, I have seen my statement Ex.P5 in the Court. It is also correct I have not recorded any statement against said Prabhjot Singh to the police and his name is also not mentioned in my statement Ex.P5. I do not know Prabhjot Singh personally and no such dealing ever took place with said Prabhjot Singh at any moment or time. Volunteered I have seen one time to said Prabhjot Singh in the bank. I have no dispute with said Prabhjot Singh."
15. PW3-Puneet Sharma who was also a person aggrieved in the same manner as the complainant has also not attributed any inculpatory role to the petitioner. He has stated that he had never visited the Axis Bank at Rajpura and the relevant extract of his testimony is reproduced hereinbelow:-
"Then I paid Rs.60,000/- to Maneet Bindra and he had opened my account in Axis Bank, Rajpura. I never visited Axis Bank, Rajpura for opening of account. When the documents were taken by Manit Bindra me then he had obtained my signatures on several documents. After the receipt of cheque book 15 of 21 ::: Downloaded on - 18-10-2022 06:45:48 ::: CRM-M-43344-2018 -16- in the bank, Manit Bindra obtained his signtures on all the cheques and kept the cheque book with him."
Similar is the testimony of PW4-Gurjant Singh and the same is reproduced hereinbelow:-
"Manmeet Bindra told that I will arrange Rs.10.00 lacs for showing the same in your account but Manmeet Bindra and would take Rs.50,000/- as interest. I had not gone to Rajpura for opening of bank account. Maneet Bindra had got opened my account in Rajpura on his own. I had not gone for opening of account. Mannet Bindra would take the money after some time when the account had been opened. Cheque book had been kept by Maneet Bindra. All the money which had been deposited on withdrawn in my account had been withdrawn by Maneet Bindra himself."
PW1-Kamaldeep Batra who was the Operations Manager, Axis Bank, Rajpura, where the petitioner was a manager has not attributed any inculpatory role to the petitioner.
Therefore, the finding of the Court while summoning the petitioner that all the witnesses had named the petitioner and attributed a specific inculpatory role to him is factually incorrect.
16. It would also be relevant to mention that prior to the placing of the petitioner in Column No.2, a detailed inquiry took place whereby it was clearly found that the petitioner had absolutely no inculpatory role to play. While it is true that the contents of the inquiry report are not relevant for the purposes of adjudication of an application under Section 319 Cr.P.C., the same be pressed into service to buttress the arguments of the petitioner. The relevant extract of the inquiry report is reproduced hereinbelow:-
16 of 21 ::: Downloaded on - 18-10-2022 06:45:48 ::: CRM-M-43344-2018 -17- "From my up-to-date inquiry and on perusal of evidence, statements of the witnesses as well as FIR No.267 dated 11.10.2011 under sections 406, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B IPC registered at Police station City Rajpura, it has been found that he was posted in Axis Bank as Branch Manager for the period from 01.05.2010 to 25.05.2011. At that time through Bank Manager Muneet Bindra son of Sh. Ranjit Singh Bindra, caste Khatri, resident of 316, GH 99, Sector 20, Panchkula c/o Axis Bank Sector 35, Chandigarh (who was posted here at Rajpura Branch as Branch manager before the applicant Prabjot Singh) Paras Gera Son of Sh. Bansi Lal Gera, Resident of House No.B-998 Banso Gate, Karnal (Haryana) along with his father Bansi Lal Gera had come. The Sales Manager Tejinder Singh had produced the documents for the opening of account of Paras Gera before the applicant Prabhjot who had after verifying the documents forwarded the same for opening of accounts to Chandigarh and an amount of Rs.2700/- had been deposited by Paras Gera and his account No.910010026295018 had become in operation. During the posting of the applicant Prabhjot Singh in Axis bank, Rajpura, the transaction was done in the account of Paras Gera for five times. The photostat copy of the statement regarding the transactions which were done in the account during the posting of applicant Prabhjot Singh as Manager in Axis Bank, Rajpura branch is attached herewith for the kind perusal. It is also relevant to mention here that when any account holder can make any money transaction from any branch then it is not necessary that he can make the transaction from that very branch where his account is lying. The account holder of the bank can make the money transaction in any branch of the concerned bank. After opening of aforesaid account, an amount of Rs.7,00,000/- was deposited in the account of 17 of 21 ::: Downloaded on - 18-10-2022 06:45:48 ::: CRM-M-43344-2018 -18- Paras Gera in Chandigarh Brnach and later on, this amount was withdrawn from Axis Bank, Rajpura vide cheque No.43061 dated 26.10.2010. Thereafter, an amount of Rs.1,57,000/- was deposited in the account of Paras Gera at Kurukshetra Branch on 28.12.2010.
Then thereafter, on 21.03.2011, Rs.1,65,000/- was withdrawn vide cheque No.43062 on 21.03.2011 from Adda Dakha Branch at Ludhiana. Then on 12.05.2011, an amount of Rs.8,15,000 /- was deposited which transferred from the account of Manjinder Kaur and Rs.8.00 lacs have been withdrawn on 12.05.2011 vide cheque No.43065. Whenever, the money transaction is made in the account of Paras Gera in Axis Bank, Rajpura there is no signature of the applicant Prabhjot Singh as a Manager nor the signatures of Manager are required regarding money transactions.
Thereafter, on 25.05.2011, applicant Prabhjot Singh was transferred from Axis Bank, Rajpura to Axis Bank, Faridkot. Photocopy of the transfer orders is attached. The list of account which has been given in the FIR out of which, 16 accounts do not pertains to Axis Bank, Rajpura Branch and out of remaining 14 account, 10 accounts had already been in operation in Axis Bank, Rajpura before the joining of the applicant Prabhjot Singh at Rajpura.
From the inquiry, it has been found that during the posting of the applicant in the Axis Bank, Rajpura as Manager, four accounts were opened:
1) Paras Gera, Account No.910010026295018.
2) Gurjant Singh Virk, account No.910010027601915
3) Sandeep Kaur, Account No.910010027434278
4) Sumandeep Kaur, Account No.910010027434375 The same Manager were opened after fulfilling the KYC norms, as per the RBI guidelines. The signatures of Prabhjot Singh as Manager are not there on any of the transactions which have been made in these accounts.
18 of 21 ::: Downloaded on - 18-10-2022 06:45:48 ::: CRM-M-43344-2018 -19- Apart from this also there is no requirement for signatures of Branch Manager on any such transactions. Only proceeding for opening of bank account of the customer Paras Gera has been initiated, by Prabhjot Singh and that too as per the bank rules and after opening of the account, no proceeding has been initialed by the applicant Prabhjot Singh being Manager of Axis Bank at Rajpura regarding the transaction made in his account.
During the inquiry, it has also come into light that the applicant Prabhjot Singh had not been found guilty during the internal inquiry done twice by the Axis Bank regarding the misuse of account of Paras Gera. The applicant has also got the concession of bail from the Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court, Chandigarh on the ground that it is the duty of the Bank manager that whenever, any person visits the bank for opening of account, the account of the customer has to be be opened after completing all the formalities, as per the rules. Photocopy of the bail order passed by the Hon'ble High Court and copy of the petition i.e. Crl. Misc. M 34681 of 2011 are attached for kind perusal.
During the inquiry, Sh. Manish Rawal son of Sh. KK Rawal, resident of Flat No.303, Society No.15-A, Sector-B Panchkula (Haryana) now Branch Head, Axis Bank, Rajpura, Patiala has also got recorded in his statement that the account of Paras Gera bearing No. 910010026295018 has been opened, as per the rules after obtaining necessary documents, his statement is enclosed for kind perusal.
That keeping in view the facts and circumstances mentioned above, the account of Paras Gera son of the complainant Sh. Bansi Lal Gera has been opened by the applicant Prabhjot Singh being Manager of Axis Bank, Rajpura, as per the law after obtaining all the necessary documents and he has not misused the 19 of 21 ::: Downloaded on - 18-10-2022 06:45:48 ::: CRM-M-43344-2018 -20- account of Paras Gera, son of the complainant. The transaction which have been made in the account of Paras Gera, the same have been done through the chequs duly signed by him (Paras Gera). The applicant Prabhjot Singh is not fault in the same. From my inquiry, Prabhjot Singh is innocent in FIR No.267 dated 11.10.2011 registered under Sections 406, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B IPC at Police Station City Rajpura. The report is submitted for approval.
If report is accepted then further appropriate directions be issued to the Station House Officer, Police Station City Rajpura.
Sd/-
SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE (D) PATIALA."
17. In the light of the aforementioned discussion as also the law as enumerated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, it is apparent that the power under Section 319 Cr.P.C. is a discretionary power and an extra- ordinary one and the same is to be exercised sparingly and only in those cases where the circumstances of the case so warrant. Only where strong and cogent material is available against a person from the evidence led before the Court that such power should be exercised and not in a casual or cavalier manner. The prima facie opinion which is to be formed requires stronger evidence than mere probability of his complicity. In the present case, there is nothing on record to substantiate that the petitioner had any specific inculpatory role to play or was in conspiracy with the main accused so as to entail his summoning as an additional accused under Section 319 Cr.P.C. to face trial with the other accused.
18. In view of the above, I find merit in the present petition and therefore, the order dated 11.04.2018 (Annexure P-1) passed by the 20 of 21 ::: Downloaded on - 18-10-2022 06:45:48 ::: CRM-M-43344-2018 -21- Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Rajpura, order dated 28.08.2018 (Annexure P-2) passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Patiala and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom are hereby quashed qua the petitioner only.
(JASJIT SINGH BEDI) JUDGE 17.10.2022 JITESH Whether speaking/reasoned:- Yes/No Whether reportable:- Yes/No 21 of 21 ::: Downloaded on - 18-10-2022 06:45:48 :::