RAM AUTAR SINGH, J. - (1.) I have heard learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Manish Tiwary, learned counsel for O.P. No. 2 and learned AGA for O.P. No. 1 on this application moved under section 482 Cr.P.C. and gone through the affidavit of Sri Hari Shankar Pandey, counter affidavit of Sri Asharfi Lal Sharma and rejoinder affidavit of Sri Hari Shankar Pandey, Senior Manager (Administrative), Bank of Baroda, Regional Office, Varanasi filed in support of their respective contentions. This judgment was reserved which I proceed to deliver by means of the present judgment.
(2.) THIS application has been moved on behalf of appellant Arun Kumar Parikh, Deputy Regional Manager, Bank of Baroda, Mumbai, under section 482 Cr.P.C. with prayer to quash proceedings of criminal complaint case no. 3948 of 2004 (M/s. Prashant Glass Works Vs. Bank of Baroda), under section 420 IPC, pending in the court of Judicial Magistrate, II, Varanasi. The brief facts as mentioned in the complaint are that complainant M/s. Prashant Glass Works Private Limited, Motiwala Industrial Estate, Varanasi used to carry on its business in import and sale of chemicals and raw silk and maintain its account in Bank of Baroda, I.B.B. Branch Nadesar, Varanasi, which granted credit facility upto Rs. 30 lacs to the complainant, which was further extended upto Rs. 130 lacs. The above bank issued bank guarantee for sum of Rs. 47 lacs at the instance of the complainant in favour of the Handicrafts and Handloom Export corporation of India Limited, New Delhi (HHEC) in the year 1999 and it was returned back on 23.4.2002. In Civil Suit No. 755 of 2000 (Prashant Glass Works Vs. HHEC), Civil Judge (JD), City Varanasi released the bank guarantee in favour of complainant vide order dated 3.2.2003. The account of complainant being maintained in Bank of Baroda Branch, Nadesar, Varanasi used to be operated on the direction of Divisional Office of above bank at Lucknow and Shri A.S. Kasliwal posted on some senior post at Lucknow used to interfere in the transaction of complainant firm in improper manner, as a result of which the complainant got his account transferred from Nadesar Branch Varanasi to Parliament Street, New Delhi vide his letter dated 22.11.2001. Subsequently, Shri A.S. Kasliwal also got himself transferred from Varanasi to the said branch at New Delhi and started to interfere in the transaction of complainant firm, in respect of which complainant made a complaint to the Chairman, Bank of Baroda, Central Office Bombay on 25.8.2002, which annoyed Shri Kasliwal, who hatching out criminal conspiracy closed cash transaction and cash credit facility of complainant firm and got the other accounts of complainant firm in the Hangkong and Sanghai Banking Corporation Limited, New Delhi seized by furnishing wrong information about Rs. 6 lacs. The complainant firm got the information about the same from the said bank on 13.11.2003. Thus the Bank of Baroda in hatching out criminal conspiracy, stopped bank guarantee and cash credit facility for Rs. 123 lacs.
(3.) THE complainant M/s. Prashant Glass Works Private Limited instituted a complaint case bearing no. 657 of 2003 against Bank of Baroda, Varanasi through Chief General manager, Sri Arun Kumar Parikh, Sri A.S. Kasliwal, General Manager, Bank of Baroda, New Delhi, Sri B.K. Sinha, Assistant General Manager, Bank of Baroda, New Delhi, Sri Akhilesh Chandra Rastogi, Senior Manager, Honkong and Shanghai Banking Corporation Limited, New Delhi and Sri Nirmal Sinha, Deputy General Manager, Handicrafts and Handloom Export corporation of India Limited, NOIDA, under sections 406, 419, 420, 120-B IPC. The Court below recorded the statement of complainant under section 200 Cr.P.C. and statements of witnesses namely Santosh Kumar Srivastava, Kamla Kant Shukla, under section 202 Cr.P.C. and some documentary evidence was also filed by complainant. The learned Vth Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Varanasi taking cognizance summoned Sri Arun Kumar Parikh and Sri A.S. Kasliwal to face trial under section 420 IPC vide its order dated 16.6.2003 and ultimately issued non-bailable-warrants against them.;