- (1.) THE prayers of the petitioners are (1) to quash F. I. R. dated 21-7-1995 giving rise to Case Crime No. 282 of 1995, under Section 4061. P. C. , P. S. Sipari Bazar, District Jhansi, by grant of a writ of certiorari and (ii) command Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 not to arrest them pursuant to the aforementioned First Information Report.
(2.) THE petitioner No. 1 claims to be Secretary/general Manager of the Zila Sahkari Bank Limited, Jhansi and Petitioner No. 2 claims to be Senior Manager (Accounts) of the aforemen tioned Bank. Respondent No. 3 is Ashok Kumar Agrawal, Advocate-the informant at whose instance the First Information Report in question was registered. From a perusal of the First Information Report shortly put his case is to this effect-Right from the day on which the Bank in ques tion was opened he was keeping his jewel leries and essential documents of move-able properties in his Locker No. 64 for their safety. When he went to open his Locker at 10. 45 a. m. on 19-7-95, told the Branch Manager of the Bank Shri S. K. Verma, that before shifting of his Locker to this new premises he was not informed. Mr. Verma told him that it was his outlook to change the place of the Bank with which he has no concern. Then, after completing formalities he went to the Strong Room. He found that the lock put on his Locker No. 64 had some signs of scratches. In that regard, he immediately informed the Branch Manager. Then he learnt that the locker in course of transfer had fell down twice from the Thela' (hand-cart) and for that reason. it may have come out; On opening the locker he did not find the plastic bag containing jewelleries detailed and kept therein by him; He attempted to contact the authorities of the Head Office of the Bank but they did not make themsel ves available; He has a suspicion that as the master key of the Locker is with the Branch Manager and its duplicate key may be in the Main Office and thereby the petitioners in collusion might have opened his Locker and removed his jewel leries from it; They have committed breach of trust and in misappropriating his jewelleries; It appears that in order to fulfil their conspiracy, they had not informed him in regard to transfer of the Lockers. When he asked Mr. Verma- the Branch Manager, he answered that he does not know any thing and cannot say in this regard. Thus, appropriate legal action be taken against the aforementioned persons. The petitioners assert, inter alia, to these effect-In the First Information Report the date and time of the incident has not been mentioned. Only the date and time of the knowledge of the alleged occurrence has been mentioned. Due to shortage of accommodation in the Branch Office of Nandanpura Branch of Zila Sahakari Bank Limited, Jhansi in Building at B - 77/3 Avas Vikas Colony Nandanpura, Jhansi, where it was situated, a decision was taken to shift it. Thereafter it was shifted to the new premises. In this regard a notice was published in Dainik Bhaskar on 28th June, 1995; The complainant has wrongly mentioned in the F. I. R. that dupli cate keys of the Lockers of the Bank were with its authorities. The complainant has wrongly mentioned that the shifting of the Branch Office has not been published in the local newspapers. The petitioners have come to know about the alleged incident through the newspapers in the morning of 22-7-1995. In the First Information Report no specific role of the petitioners have been assigned except stating of suspicion which does not constitute any offence under Section 406 IPC. The petitioners had no knowledge about the jewelleries being kept in the Locker in question by the complainant. As the police is adamant to arrest them in connection with the aforesaid criminal case the im pugned F. I. R. be quashed.
(3.) SHRI O. P. Singh, learned counsel appearing in support of this writ petition contended that in view of the facts stated in the writ petition his prayer be allowed. Mr. Mehrotra, learned A. G. A. ap pearing on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 and 2 on the other hand, contended as follows: On a bare perusal of the First Information Report it is clear that the complainant has rightly stated only such facts which were and are within his knowledge and has cor rectly pointed out the needle of his suspicion against the officials of the bank. On the averments made in the writ peti tion itself it is clear that the police had made attempts to arrest the petitioners which means that the police during inves tigation must have found prima facie the guilt of the petitioner. Thus, the writ peti tion be dismissed.;