RISHIPAL SINGH Vs. STATE OF U.P.
LAWS(SC)-2014-7-17
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA (FROM: ALLAHABAD)
Decided on
July 02,2014
RISHIPAL SINGH
Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF U.P.
Respondents
Referred Judgements :-
CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION V. DUNCANS AGRO INDUSTRIES LTD. [REFERRED TO]STATE OF HARYANA VS. BHAJAN LAL [REFERRED TO]
REJESH BAJAJ VS. STATE NCT OF DELHI [REFERRED TO]
ZANDU PHARMACEUTICAL WORKS LTD VS. SHARAFUL HAQUE [REFERRED TO]
Cited Judgements :-
B. SRIRAM AND ORS. VS. GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI [LAWS(DLH)-2015-11-288] [REFERRED TO]ARVIND KUMAR VS. STATE OF U.P. [LAWS(ALL)-2020-12-25] [REFERRED TO]
RAJEEV SHARMA VS. STATE OF U.P. AND ORS. [LAWS(ALL)-2019-5-493] [REFERRED TO]
SUN PHARMACEUTICALS LIMITED VS. STATE OF TELANGANA [LAWS(APH)-2016-4-47] [REFERRED TO]
BHARAT DEVDAN SALVI VS. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH SENIOR POLICE INSPECTOR [LAWS(BOM)-2016-1-39] [REFERRED TO]
HARI RAM SHARMA AND ORS. VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND ORS. [LAWS(RAJ)-2015-2-58] [REFERRED TO]
VIKAS KUMAR VS. STATE OF BIHAR [LAWS(PAT)-2020-6-1] [REFERRED TO]
RAMEGOWDA VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ORS. [LAWS(KAR)-2015-10-106] [REFERRED TO]
ARVIND KUMAR JAIN VS. STATE OF RAJ. [LAWS(RAJ)-2015-2-97] [REFERRED TO]
SURINDER KAUR AND ORS. VS. STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS. [LAWS(P&H)-2015-12-80] [REFERRED TO]
GAJENDRA SINGH SENGAR VS. STATE OF M.P. AND ANOTHER [LAWS(MPH)-2017-12-293] [REFERRED TO]
PRAKASH AGRAWAL VS. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH [LAWS(MPH)-2020-6-996] [REFERRED TO]
K. SHIVANAGOUDA NAIK VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA [LAWS(KAR)-2021-3-54] [REFERRED TO]
VIOM NETWORKS LIMITED VS. STATE OF WEST BENGAL [LAWS(CAL)-2024-3-208] [REFERRED TO]
VIJAYCHANDRA PRAKASH SHUKLA VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [LAWS(GJH)-2017-1-8] [REFERRED TO]
YUVARAJ WADAWADAGI AND ORS. VS. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ORS. [LAWS(KAR)-2015-10-118] [REFERRED TO]
P P MARANDI VS. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH [LAWS(ALL)-2015-3-74] [REFERRED TO]
SANJAY SINGH VS. STATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER [LAWS(ALL)-2021-2-2] [REFERRED TO]
D.P. GULATI VS. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND ORS. [LAWS(SC)-2015-3-110] [REFERRED TO]
RAJESH PRASAD PANDEY VS. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH [LAWS(MPH)-2020-1-178] [REFERRED TO]
PRAKASH MISHRA VS. STATE OF ODISHA AND ORS. [LAWS(ORI)-2015-6-24] [REFERRED TO]
B. S. YEDDYURAPPA VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA [LAWS(KAR)-2021-1-31] [REFERRED TO]
AIR INDIA LIMITED VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA [LAWS(KAR)-2021-2-91] [REFERRED TO]
DHARMENDRASINH RATANSINH RAOL VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [LAWS(GJH)-2017-3-529] [REFERRED TO]
NARLA SYAM KISHORE MOULI VS. THE STATE OF A.P. AND ORS. [LAWS(APH)-2015-6-77] [REFERRED TO]
SUSSANNE KHAN VS. THE STATE OF GOA [LAWS(BOM)-2016-8-103] [REFERRED TO]
NANDAN SADANAND BENDARKAR VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(BOM)-2015-5-63] [REFERRED TO]
MADAN PAL SINGH VS. STATE OF U.P. [LAWS(ALL)-2017-3-303] [REFERRED TO]
RAKESH KUMAR SINGH & ORS. VS. CIVIL JUDGE JUNIOR DIVISION KAISERGANJ BAHRAICH & ORS. [LAWS(ALL)-2016-8-317] [REFERRED TO]
PRASENJIT SAHA VS. STATE OF WEST BENGAL [LAWS(CAL)-2022-7-79] [REFERRED TO]
AMANDEEP SINGH AND ANOTHER VS. STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS [LAWS(P&H)-2015-9-862] [REFERRED]
PRAMOD AHIRWAR VS. STATE OF MP [LAWS(MPH)-2019-3-150] [REFERRED TO]
NISHANT KUMAR JHA VS. STATE OF M.P. AND ANOTHER [LAWS(MPH)-2014-11-218] [REFERRED TO]
STATION HOUSE OFFICER CBI/ACB/BANGALORE VS. B.A. SRINIVASAN [LAWS(SC)-2019-12-11] [REFERRED TO]
GAGAN AERO SPACE LTD VS. STATE OF TELANGANA [LAWS(TLNG)-2019-4-129] [REFERRED TO]
LAL JI SONI VS. STATE OF U P [LAWS(ALL)-2017-3-388] [REFERRED TO]
AWDHESH SHARMA VS. STATE OF U P [LAWS(ALL)-2015-5-157] [REFERRED TO]
IN THE MATTER OF: SAMIR JAIN VS. THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL [LAWS(CAL)-2018-2-164] [REFERRED TO]
SWADHEEN KUMAR RAUT VS. STATE OF ODISHA [LAWS(ORI)-2023-6-47] [REFERRED TO]
SUTANJAY SAXENA VS. STATE OF M P [LAWS(MPH)-2015-11-55] [REFERRED TO]
POOJA AGRAWAL VS. SHIVBHAN SINGH RATHORE AND ORS. [LAWS(MPH)-2015-10-9] [REFERRED TO]
TUKARAM BABULAL NINAVE VS. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH [LAWS(MPH)-2016-6-20] [REFERRED TO]
RAMEGOWDA VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ORS. [LAWS(KAR)-2015-12-58] [REFERRED TO]
SURESH DAHIYA VS. STATE OF M.P. [LAWS(MPH)-2019-10-30] [REFERRED TO]
KANHOLI MUKUNDAN NAMBIAR VS. K.V. SATISH NAMBIAR [LAWS(KER)-2015-2-35] [REFERRED TO]
RAHUL GANDHI AND ORS. VS. SUBRAMANIAN SWAMY AND ORS. [LAWS(DLH)-2015-12-31] [REFERRED TO]
HDFC SECURITIES LTD. & ORS VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ANR. [LAWS(SC)-2016-12-11] [REFERRED TO]
A. CHANDRASEKHAR VS. STATE OF TELANGANA [LAWS(TLNG)-2021-7-46] [REFERRED TO]
SUKESH GUPTA VS. GOVERNMENT OFINDIA [LAWS(TLNG)-2022-2-76] [REFERRED TO]
BHOLA YADAV SON OF LATE SOMAR YADAV VS. STATE OF BIHAR [LAWS(PAT)-2017-5-51] [REFERRED TO]
SAJJADUR RAHMAN MAJAR BHUIYA VS. ROFIZUL HAQUE CHOUDHURY [LAWS(GAU)-2018-12-31] [REFERRED TO]
SRI. P C MOHAN VS. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF POLICE [LAWS(KAR)-2021-1-3] [REFERRED TO]
UTTAM CHAND SAHU VS. STATE OF M.P. [LAWS(MPH)-2019-11-178] [REFERRED TO]
RATIRAM AHIRWAR VS. STATE OF M.P. [LAWS(MPH)-2020-1-186] [REFERRED TO]
RASHMI AND ORS. VS. STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS. [LAWS(P&H)-2015-5-306] [REFERRED TO]
S GNANATHIRAVIYAM VS. STATE REP BY SECRETARY [LAWS(MAD)-2018-7-1019] [REFERRED TO]
HIMACHAL PRADESH CRICKET ASSOCIATION AND ORS. VS. STATE OF H.P. [LAWS(HPH)-2016-8-1] [REFERRED TO]
ASHESH SHANTILAL PATEL & 6 VS. STATE OF GUJARAT & 1 [LAWS(GJH)-2014-8-253] [REFERRED TO]
PRASHANT JAIN VS. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH [LAWS(ALL)-2017-3-390] [REFERRED TO]
AKHILESH SAKET VS. STATE OF M P & ANR [LAWS(MPH)-2019-10-5] [REFERRED TO]
RANDHIR SINGH AND ORS. VS. STATE OF HARYANA [LAWS(P&H)-2015-9-154] [REFERRED TO]
SANGEETA AWASTHI VS. STATE OF U P AND ANOTHER [LAWS(ALL)-2017-3-242] [REFERRED TO]
HEMANT NIMBALKAR VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA [LAWS(KAR)-2021-3-5] [REFERRED TO]
JAGDISH CHAND VS. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AND OTHERS [LAWS(HPH)-2016-5-199] [REFERRED TO]
KATTISETTI KALYANA CHAKRAVARTHY VS. STATE OF A P [LAWS(APH)-2015-3-8] [REFERRED TO]
SRI LANKA VENKATA SUBRAHMANYAM VS. THE STATE OF TELANGANA., REP. BY SPECIAL PP OF CBI, HYDERABAD [LAWS(APH)-2018-1-43] [REFERRED TO]
NALINI RANJAN BAL VS. STATE OF WEST BENGAL [LAWS(CAL)-2022-7-38] [REFERRED TO]
ANAND VARDHAN VS. STATE OF U.P. [LAWS(ALL)-2017-4-199] [REFERRED TO]
ANURAG SINGHANIA VS. STATE OF U P [LAWS(ALL)-2015-2-204] [REFERRED TO]
COLGATE-PALMOLIVE (INDIA) LTD VS. ANCHOR HEALTH AND BEAUTY CARE PVT LTD [LAWS(DLH)-2019-5-290] [REFERRED TO]
SRI BASAVARAJ SHIVAPPA MUTTAGI VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA [LAWS(KAR)-2021-10-9] [REFERRED TO]
PRANAV V. ADANI (DIRECTOR) & ORS. VS. STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR. [LAWS(GJH)-2016-11-22] [REFERRED TO]
S. KARUNAKARAN VS. STATE AND ORS. [LAWS(MAD)-2016-1-115] [REFERRED TO]
JUDGEMENT
N.V.RAMANA, J. -
(1.)LEAVE granted.
(2.)THIS appeal arises out of order dated 6th November, 2012 of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad refusing the prayer of the appellant for quashing the proceedings in Complaint Case No. 2397 of 2012 under Sections 34, 379, 411, 417, 418, 420, 457, 458 and 477 IPC pending on the file of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ghaziabad.
The facts relevant for the disposal of this appeal, in a nutshell, are that on 21st March, 2005, respondent No.2 herein filed a private complaint (Annexure P/2) in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. against the appellant herein and three other accused who are not parties before us, invoking Sections 34, 379, 411, 417, 418, 420, 467, 458 and 477 IPC. According to the said complaint, the complainant was holding a Bank Account in the Ghaziabad District Co -operative Bank, Maliwada, Ghaziabad where the appellant was the Branch Manager. It was alleged in the complaint that taking advantage of the innocence of the complainant and his brother, the accused, mischievously obtained their signatures on blank cheques and committed theft of their hand bag in which the signed cheque book was kept. When they came to know that their bag containing signed cheques and other papers was missing, not knowing the misdeed of the accused, a search has been undertaken for the lost bag containing signed cheques and also lodged a written report on 17th May, 2004 at Sihani Gate Police Station to that effect. The Bank was also informed in writing on 17th May, 2004 itself that duly signed cheque book of Account No. 1132 has been lost, hence no payment on the lost cheques be made to any person and all those cheques may be cancelled (Annexure P/1). It was further stated by the complainant that when he received a notice dated 6th October, 2004 under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act from Neelam Rani (co -accused, not party before us) stating that Cheque No.083697 (one of the lose cheques) for Rs.5,00,067/ - as if issued by him towards the purchase of Kachi bricks and coal from ''Neelam Brick Field '', then he realized that there was some planned conspiracy and the cheque book was not actually lost but was stolen and being misused by the accused for drawing various amounts from his bank account. In the said complaint, the complainant - respondent No.2, has totally denied any such transaction with ''Neelam Brick Field '' and alleged that the accused cooked up that transaction, hatched a conspiracy with the bank employees for cheating him, and accordingly all the amounts of the complainant and his family have been ''looted ''.
(3.)THE main allegation levelled against the appellant was that when a written information had already been given on 17th May, 2004 to the appellant who was the Branch Manager of the Bank not to honour the lost cheques and cancel them, he should have performed his duties with utmost responsibility and when the stolen/lost cheque was presented, he should have given the information of its presentation to the police as well as to the complainant. On the contrary, the appellant neither handed over the person who presented the cheque, to the police, nor brought to the notice of the complainant about its presentation. It is because of the involvement of the appellant in the conspiracy he has not discharged his duties as Branch Manager with responsibility and acted against the instructions in the letter dated 17th May, 2004 only to harass the complainant and his family financially and mentally. Thus the appellant played a role in the conspiracy, and therefore, the complainant lodged the complaint under the aforesaid sections of IPC against the appellant as well as other accused.
(2.)THIS appeal arises out of order dated 6th November, 2012 of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad refusing the prayer of the appellant for quashing the proceedings in Complaint Case No. 2397 of 2012 under Sections 34, 379, 411, 417, 418, 420, 457, 458 and 477 IPC pending on the file of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ghaziabad.
The facts relevant for the disposal of this appeal, in a nutshell, are that on 21st March, 2005, respondent No.2 herein filed a private complaint (Annexure P/2) in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. against the appellant herein and three other accused who are not parties before us, invoking Sections 34, 379, 411, 417, 418, 420, 467, 458 and 477 IPC. According to the said complaint, the complainant was holding a Bank Account in the Ghaziabad District Co -operative Bank, Maliwada, Ghaziabad where the appellant was the Branch Manager. It was alleged in the complaint that taking advantage of the innocence of the complainant and his brother, the accused, mischievously obtained their signatures on blank cheques and committed theft of their hand bag in which the signed cheque book was kept. When they came to know that their bag containing signed cheques and other papers was missing, not knowing the misdeed of the accused, a search has been undertaken for the lost bag containing signed cheques and also lodged a written report on 17th May, 2004 at Sihani Gate Police Station to that effect. The Bank was also informed in writing on 17th May, 2004 itself that duly signed cheque book of Account No. 1132 has been lost, hence no payment on the lost cheques be made to any person and all those cheques may be cancelled (Annexure P/1). It was further stated by the complainant that when he received a notice dated 6th October, 2004 under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act from Neelam Rani (co -accused, not party before us) stating that Cheque No.083697 (one of the lose cheques) for Rs.5,00,067/ - as if issued by him towards the purchase of Kachi bricks and coal from ''Neelam Brick Field '', then he realized that there was some planned conspiracy and the cheque book was not actually lost but was stolen and being misused by the accused for drawing various amounts from his bank account. In the said complaint, the complainant - respondent No.2, has totally denied any such transaction with ''Neelam Brick Field '' and alleged that the accused cooked up that transaction, hatched a conspiracy with the bank employees for cheating him, and accordingly all the amounts of the complainant and his family have been ''looted ''.
(3.)THE main allegation levelled against the appellant was that when a written information had already been given on 17th May, 2004 to the appellant who was the Branch Manager of the Bank not to honour the lost cheques and cancel them, he should have performed his duties with utmost responsibility and when the stolen/lost cheque was presented, he should have given the information of its presentation to the police as well as to the complainant. On the contrary, the appellant neither handed over the person who presented the cheque, to the police, nor brought to the notice of the complainant about its presentation. It is because of the involvement of the appellant in the conspiracy he has not discharged his duties as Branch Manager with responsibility and acted against the instructions in the letter dated 17th May, 2004 only to harass the complainant and his family financially and mentally. Thus the appellant played a role in the conspiracy, and therefore, the complainant lodged the complaint under the aforesaid sections of IPC against the appellant as well as other accused.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.