Allahabad High Court
Prabha Shanker vs State Of U.P. on 11 July, 2022
Author: Dinesh Kumar Singh
Bench: Dinesh Kumar Singh
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH ?Court No. - 10 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 129 of 2009 Applicant :- Prabha Shanker Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Sudeep Seth,Rakesh Kumar Chaudhary Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt. Advocate,Shrikant Misra connected with Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 597 of 2010 Applicant :- Dr. Alok Kumar Srivastava And Another Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Ashutosh Singh,Abhishek Mishra,Subhash Chandra Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt. Advocate Hon'ble Dinesh Kumar Singh,J.
1. Heard Sri Rakesh Kumar Chaudhary and Sri Abhishek Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioners in both the petitions and Sri S.N. Goswami, learned AGA.
2. Despite service of notice, no one has put in appearance on behalf of the complainant.
3. Application U/s 482 No.129 of 2009 has been filed seeking quashing of the summoning order dated 29.3.2008 and the entire proceedings of Criminal Case No.172 of 2008, State of U.P. Vs. Prabha Shanker, and the charge sheet submitted in Case Crime No.29 of 2007, under Sections 409, 404, 408, 419, 420, 465, 471, 210, 120-B IPC, Police Station Kotwali Nagar, District Sultanpur.
4. Application U/s 482 No.597 of 2010 has been filed seeking quashing of the summoning order dated 22.11.2007 and the entire proceedings of Criminal Case No.1304 of 2005, Arvind Kumr Singh Vs. Dr. Alok Kumar Srivastava, under Sections 404, 409 and 120-B IPC, Police Station Kotwali Nagar, District Sultanpur.
5. Prabha Shankar, petitioner of Application U/s 482 No.129 of 2009 was employed as General Manager in District Cooperative Bank, Sultanpur and Dr. Alok Kumar Srivastava, petitioner no.1 in Application U/S 482 No.129 of 2009 became the General Manager after Prabha Shanker got transferred from the District Cooperative Bank, Sultanpur.
6. Father of the complainant was employed as Secretary of the Sadhan Sahkari Samite. He died in harness. There were several dues of the bank which were to be recovered from the death-cum-retirement dues of the father of the complainant. The complainant applied for employment under the Dying-in-Harness provisions in the Samiti and he was given appointment on 15.10.2019. The complainant submitted an affidavit that he would be responsible to clear the debts of his deceased father and the amount to be recovered from estate of the deceased father, may be adjusted from the salary of the complainant.
7. It appears that some dues of the father of the complainant were not paid by the Bank on the ground that the same would be adjusted against the dues of his father. The complainant filed writ petition before this Court, in which a direction was given for payment of the said dues. Thereafter, the complainant filed contempt petition and his dues were paid.
8. In the meantime, the complainant filed an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. and on the basis of the order passed by the learned Magistrate, FIR came to be registered under Sections 409, 404, 408, 419, 420, 465, 471, 210 and 120-B IPC.
9. By way of supplementary affidavit, it has been stated that the complainant has been paid all dues of his father way back in 2007 itself.
10. This Court fails to understand that how the offence under Sections 409, 404, 408, 419, 420, 465, 471, 201 read with Section 120-B IPC are attracted in the facts of the present case even if the allegations made in the FIR as well as in the compliant case are taken to be true. Further, the dues have been paid to the complainant way back in 2007. Therefore, this Court finds that continuation of the proceedings at this stage against the petitioners/employees of the District Cooperative Bank would be totally unjustified, uncalled for and are abuse of process of the Court.
11. Both the petitions are accordingly allowed and the summoning order dated 29.3.2008 and the entire proceedings of Criminal Case No.172 of 2008, State of U.P. Vs. Prabha Shanker, and the charge sheet submitted in Case Crime No.29 of 2007, under Sections 409, 404, 408, 419, 420, 465, 471, 210, 120-B IPC, Police Station Kotwali Nagar, District Sultanpur in Application U/s 482 No.129 of 2009 and the summoning order dated 22.11.2007 and the entire proceedings of Criminal Case No.1304 of 2005, Arvind Kumr Singh Vs. Dr. Alok Kumar Srivastava, under Sections 404, 409 and 120-B IPC, Police Station Kotwali Nagar, District Sultanpur in Application U/s 482 No.597 of 2010 are hereby quashed.
Order Date :- 11.7.2022 Rao/-