Umesh Chandra - (1.) BY this petition under Section 482 CrPC Pramod Kumar Saxena son of C. S.Saxena, resident of 147, Sabitganj, police station Kotwali, Etawah, has prayed for the following reliefs : (1) That the charge-sheet and the subsequent criminal proceedings pending in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Etawah, as Case no. 74 of 1985 under Section 409 IPC, be quashed ; (2) That the application moved by the petitioner to implead G. R. Chaturvedi, Branch Manager, as an accused be disposed of, and (3) That the further proceedings in the pending case mentioned above, be stayed.
(2.) IT is alleged in paragraph 8 of the affidavit that petitioner has moved an application under Section 319 CrPC that G. R. Chaturvedi be impleaded as accused. That application has not been decided and is pending. The learned Magistrate is, therefore, directed to dispose of that application by a speaking order at an early date. As regards quashing of the charge-sheet and subsequent criminal proceedings, no interference is required. The charge-sheet was filed on 28-6-1977. The complaint discloses a cause of action. Petitioner Pramod Kumar Saxena was engaged as deposit collector on 15-7-1984 under the Banks Janta Deposit Scheme He has been collecting the amount from different depositors. It has been alleged that he collected amounts from different depositors but has not deposited the same with the Bank. On a preliminary enquiry it was found that he has absconded without any explanation. This sudden departure of the petitioner made the Bank suspicious. It was found that Dinesh Chandra, Km. Beena Gupta, Prakash Chandra, Rakesh Chandra Gupta, Km. Rajni Gupta, Km. Pushpa Kukreli, Dilip Kumar, Km. Anita Agarwal, Sunder Lal, Km Ajra Sultana, Smt. Barelkash Jahan, Dharam Narain, Km. Neelam, Umesh Chandra and Km. Razia Sultana mentioned in the complaint have entrusted the amount to the petitioner and the same has not been fully deposited in the Bank. The complaint, therefore, makes out a prima facie case against the petitioner. Moreover, the charge-sheet was filed about ten years ago. Now the case is ready for evidence. Consequently no case for quashing the charge-sheet or the pending criminal proceedings is made out. It was argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that the Case diary has been lost, hence prosecution witnesses cannot be effectively cross-examined. The Chief Judicial Magistrate by order, dated 21-5-1986 in the course of cross-examination of PW 1 gave sufficient time to the petitioner to get copies of the documents which were not earlier supplied, to prepare the case. For this purpose the case was adjourned from 21-5-1986 to 22-7-1986. If Case diary has been lost, the cross -examination; of the prosecution witnesses should proceed, and the learned counsel for the accused could rely on the copies of the statements supplied to him or a copy thereof may be summoned from the police record office. It is for the Sessions Judge to regulate cross-examination of the prosecution witnesses. So far no prejudice has been caused to the petitioner by the order dated 21-5-1986.
(3.) THE other argument advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner is that since the complainant has filed a civil suit for accounting the Complaint should be quashed. This cannot be accepted. A civil suit for accounting raises different points for consideration while the complaint mentions entrustment of the amount by different depositors and its misappropriation by the accused. Both the two matters are different. Peradency of a civil litigation does not bar trial of the petitioner for an offence alleged to have been committed by him. With this observation the petitions is disposed of.;