Karnataka High Court
M/S Icici Bank Ltd vs The State By on 5 January, 2022
Author: M.Nagaprasanna
Bench: M.Nagaprasanna
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF JANUARY 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA
WRIT PETITION NO.102639/2016 (GM-RES)
BETWEEN:
M/S ICICI BANK LTD.,
ICICI TOWERS,
BANDRA KURLA COMPLEX,
MUMBAI-400051.
REP. BY ITS AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY
MR.ANAND RAJ R.
AGE: 31 YEARS.
...PETITIONER.
(BY SHRI J M PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR SHRI V M SHEELVANT,
ADVOCATE.)
AND:
1. THE STATE BY
KHADE BAZAR POLICE STATION
KHADE BAZAR, BELAGAVI-590002.
2. RAJENDRA MAHADEV BONGALE
FATHERS NAME NOT KNOWN,
AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS
R/O FLAT NO.6, III FLOOR,
"SOMANATH APARTMENT"
4TH CROSS, BHAGYANAGAR,
BELAGAVI-590006
...RESPONDENTS.
(BY SHRI PRAVEEN K. UPPAR, HCGP, FOR R.1;
SHRI RAVI HEGDE, ADVOCATE, FOR R.2.)
2
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA READ WITH SECTION 482 OF THE
CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973, PRAYING TO:
A. CALL FOR THE RECORDS IN P.C.R.NO.571/2015 WHICH
IS PENDING ON THE FILES OF III JMFC COURT, BELAGAVI;
B. QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 06.11.2015
(ANNEXURE-A TO THE WRIT PETITION) PASSED BY THE JMFC III
COURT, BELAGAVI, IN P.C.R. NO.571/2015 IN RESPECT OF
PETITIONER ONLY.
C. QUASH THE PRIVATE COMPLAINT FILED BY 2ND
RESPONDENT (ANNEXURE-B TO THE WRIT PETITION) DATED
03.11.2015 IN THE COURT OF HON'BLE III JMFC, BELAGAVI, IN
RESPECT OF PETITIONER ONLY.
D. QUASH THE FIRST INFORMATION REPORT REGISTERED
BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT KHADE BAZAAR P.S. OF BELAGAVI CITY, IN
CRIME NO.0194/2015 (ANNEXURE-C TO THE WRIT PETITION) IN
RESPECT OF PETITIONER ONLY, ETC.,.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING
B-GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The petitioner is before this Court calling in question the proceedings in PCR No.571/2015, pending on the file of JMFC III Court, Belagavi, instituted by the 2nd respondent.
2. Heard Shri J.M.Patil, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Shri Praveen K. Uppar, the learned Government Pleader appearing for respondent no.1-State and 3 Shri Ravi Hegde, the learned counsel appearing for respondent no.2.
3. Brief facts leading to file the present petition borne out by the case of the petitioner are as follows:
a) The 2nd respondent complainant was an employee of one Sangli Bank Limited and after rendering particular period of service, tendered his resignation on 31.10.2001. The resignation was accepted on 1.12.2001 and the complainant was relieved from the services of the Sangli Bank Limited. Pursuant to the relief of the complainant on acceptance of his resignation, the bank appears to have settled all the benefits of retirement i.e., provident fund and other incidental benefits. The complainant receives entire benefits.
b) After resignation the complainant represents to the Sangli Bank on 30.4.2002 seeking pension in terms of Sangli Bank Limited (Employees) Pension Regulations, 1995, which came to be rejected. Subsequently the Sangli Bank got merged with the petitioner ICICI Bank, after which, the complainant again represented to ICICI bank seeking pension on 30.7.2015. 4
This having not been considered, had also knocked the doors of this Court by filing a writ petition.
c) During the pendency of the said writ petition, the complainant registers a Private Complaint alleging offences punishable under Sections 406, 420, 109 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, against several officers of the petitioner Bank. It is those proceedings that are called in question in the present petition.
4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the complainant having resigned from the services of the Bank was not entitled to pension.
5. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent no.2-complainant would however seek to justify the action of initiation of proceedings against the petitioner.
6. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by the respective counsels and have perused the material on record.
5
7. The complainant who was an employee of Sangli Bank after rendering requisite number of years of service did tender resignation on 31.10.2001. This came to be accepted on 1.12.2001 and the complainant stood relieved from the services of the Bank.
8. Prior to the complainant resigning from the service of the bank, pension as a third retiral benefit was introduced in the banking industry to all, Government, nationalized and private banks who were parties to settlement that was arrived at in the banking industry on 29.10.1993. This resulted in pension regulations being formulated by all the banks who were parties to the settlement, one such bank was Sangli Bank Limited, in which the complainant was an employee. The pension regulations were bought into effect on Sangli Bank on 29.9.1995 as was bought into effect in all other banks. Regulation 22 which formed a part of the regulations dealt with dismissal, removal and resignation of employees and mandated that employees who are dismissed, removed or resigned from services, forfeit their entire past service insofar as it concerns pension. The complainant being fully aware of the fact that the 6 regulation did prohibit grant of pension to an employee who resigned, with eyes wide open, resigned from the services of Sangli Bank on 1.12.2001.
9. It transpires that the Sangli Bank got merged with petitioner ICICI Bank in the year 2007, after which, the complainant again started re-agitating his claim for pension. The complainant later strangely takes recourse to criminal law by registering a Private Complaint invoking section 200 of Cr.P.C. The learned Magistrate before whom the complaint was preferred, directs investigation under section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. It is at that stage the petitioner is before this Court.
10. The allegations against the petitioner are the offence punishable under Sections 406 and 420 of IPC. Section 406 of the IPC deals with the offence punishable for criminal breach of trust, ingredients of which are found in section 405 of the IPC. For an offence of criminal breach of trust, there must be entrustment of property. The complaint is filed on an imaginary entrustment of property of the petitioner as the complainant is not even entitled to pension, even if pension is to be construed to be a property. Insofar as allegation of cheating is concerned, 7 in terms of section 420 of the IPC, the ingredients of which are found at Section 415 of the IPC, none of the ingredients that are to be needed for an offence of cheating can be found at the case at hand.
11. Therefore, permitting any further investigation or trial to be conducted against the petitioner on the suspicious plea of the complainant that he is denied pension and pension amounts to property, which cannot be accepted, would amount to an abuse of the process of law and degenerate into harassment against the petitioner.
12. For the aforesaid reason, I pass the following:
ORDER
i) The writ petition is allowed.
ii) The proceedings in P.C.R.No.571/2015,
pending on the file of JMFC III Court,
Belagavi, stands obliterated.
iii) The observations made in the course of this order is limited to consideration of the case 8 under section 482 of Cr.P.C. and would not come in the way or bind any proceedings that the complainant would want to initiate, if available in law.
SD JUDGE Mrk/-