Patna High Court
A. K. BhatiaversusState Of Bihar and Anr
- Decided
- Disposal
- ALLOWED
- Bench
- SANDEEP KUMAR
Holding
The order taking cognizance against the petitioner is unsustainable and is quashed.
Summary
A complaint was filed by Rajesh Kumar alleging that a fixed deposit of Rs.25,000 made in 2001 was tampered with and encashed in 2004 by officials of Madhya Bihar Gramin Bank. The petitioner, A.K. Bhatia, who became Chairman of the bank in 2014, sought to quash the magistrate's order of cognizance dated 05.01.2016 under IPC sections 406 and 420. The court noted that no specific allegation was made against Bhatia and that the alleged misconduct occurred a decade before he assumed office. It further observed that cognizance against a public servant requires prior sanction under CrPC section 197, which was absent. Relying on the Supreme Court’s decision in G.C. Manjunath & Ors. v. Seetaram, the court held the cognizance order illegal. Consequently, the order taking cognizance against the petitioner was quashed. The application for quash was allowed.
Issues considered
- Whether cognizance can be taken against a public servant without prior sanction under CrPC section 197.
- Whether the petitioner was specifically implicated in the alleged offences of cheating and criminal breach of trust.
- Whether the continuation of criminal proceedings against the petitioner amounts to an abuse of process.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 197
- Indian Penal Code — s. 406, 420
Subjects
- public servant
- section 197
- quash of criminal proceeding
- abuse of process
- cheating
- criminal breach of trust
- fixed deposit fraud
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.43644 of 2016
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-980 Year-2014 Thana- GAYA COMPLAINT CASE District-
Gaya
======================================================
A. K. Bhatia Son of late S.C. Bhatia at Present posted as Chairman, Madhya
Bihar Gramin Bank, Head Office, Shri Vishnu Vihar Commercial Complex,
NH 30 Ashochak, New Bye Pass, Patna.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. State Of Bihar and Anr
2. Rajesh Kumar S/o Raj Kumar Prasad A/p resident of Village Rakasia, PO
and PS- Tekari, Distt Gaya.
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Suresh Prasad Singh No.1, Advocate
: Mr. Kumari Rashmi
For the State : Mr. Shyam Kumar Singh APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP KUMAR
ORAL ORDER
6 13-01-2026
Heard the parties
2. None has appeared for Opposite Party No. 2
despite valid service of notice.
3. This application has been filed for quashing of
the order dated 05.01.2016 passed by the learned J.M. First
Class, Gaya whereby cognizance has been taken against the
petitioner U/s 406 and 420 of the IPC in connection with
complaint case no. 980/2014 and process has been issued.
4. The prosecution case in brief is that a complaint
case was lodged by the Opposite Party No. 02 on 18.06.2014
before the learned C.J.M., Gaya, alleging in the complaint that
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.43644 of 2016(6) dt.13-01-2026
2/6
he is a businessman and that on 28.03.2001 he had deposited an
amount of Rs. 25,000/- in the Madhya Bihar Gramin Bank
(herein after referred to as "Bank") for 96 months in the name of
his minor daughter, the maturity date of which was 28.03.2009
but the documents given by the bank to the father of the
complainant was misplaced, which was informed to the
manager of the said Bank and the complainant was assured by
the manager that all possible assistance will provided to him,
however, no satisfactory response was given for around 05-06
months. Whenever he tried to contact the bank, he was ousted
from the bank through the peon and was later informed that the
said amount has already been encashed in 2004. Further it is
stated that by way of an R.T.I. application, the complainant got
the information that there were some interpolations in the
records, and the fixed period of 96 months was reduced to 36
months, and that the amount has been remitted in his savings
bank account on 28.03.2004, which according to the informant
is not justified. It is further alleged that ledger no.4608 was also
changed and original copy of the statement and original voucher
was not shown to the complainant. The complainant has further
alleged that the Branch Manager had allegedly said to the
Regional Manager, that the complainant has been disturbing him
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.43644 of 2016(6) dt.13-01-2026
3/6
by making complaints before the Collector Gaya, thereupon
allegedly the Regional Manager directed a person to catch hold
of the complainant and obtained his signature on two plain
papers and also threatened the informant. Therefore, aggrieved
by the aforesaid, the complainant approached the Civil Lines
P.S., but the accused Regional Manager and the Branch
Manager were found sitting there, due to which he was unable
to lodge a F.I.R and hence has filed the present complaint.
5. Thereafter the complainant was examined on
S.A, but he has made no allegations against the petitioner and
apart from the complainant two witnesses have been examined
on behalf of the complainant out of which there is one Anil
Kumar who is his friend, he too has not even whispered about
any involvement of the Petitioner in the case similarly another
witness Uma Shanker Sharma was also examined and even he
did not say anything about the petitioner.
6. It has categorically been submitted by the
learned counsel for the petitioner that he was posted as the
Chairman of the aforesaid bank in the year 2014, i.e., much after
the alleged date on which the purported interpolation was made
in the year 2004. He has next submitted that on an earlier
occasion the O.P. no.2 had moved before this Hon'ble court vide
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.43644 of 2016(6) dt.13-01-2026
4/6
CWJC no. 7491 of 2012, wherein he has alleged that his father
had deposited fixed deposit in the name of his minor daughter
however the Hon'ble court disposed of the said application by
giving a direction that the dispute relates to matter of
accounting, and thus the writ petitioner may approach the
Banking Ombudsmen ventilating his grievance.
7. The learned counsel for the petitioner
submits that the learned court below has not even obtained
sanction before taking cognizance as required u/s 197 of the
Cr.P.C., as the chairman is considered as a public servant, thus it
may be said that the order impugned suffers from patent
illegality. Also , there must be cogent evidence against the
petitioner for facing the trial under sections 406 and 420, and
admittedly there is no role of the petitioner assigned by any of
the witnesses, hence taking cognizance dated 5.01.2016 is bad
in the eye of law.
8. Lastly, he submits that the complainant
remained mum for two years and thereafter, filed the complaint
in the year 2014 for the alleged offence of 2001 or hardly 2004,
and unfortunately the magistrate took cognizance U/s 406 and
420. Moreover, in the writ application, which was filed on oath,
he had stated that his father has deposited FD with the Tekari
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.43644 of 2016(6) dt.13-01-2026
5/6
BO of the MBGB, whereas in the complaint he has alleged to
have deposited by his own, that speaks enough about his
falsehood and malice behind the case.
9. The learned APP has opposed the present
petition.
10. From the perusal of the complaint petition, it
appears that no allegation is leveled against the present
petitioner who had joined as a bank official after almost 10
years from the alleged date of interpolation in the official
records of the bank.
11. The petitioner is the Chairman of the bank,
and from the records it appears that, the sanction has not been
taken before proceeding against the him which is in complete
violation of the section 197 of the Indian Penal Code.
12. Therefore considering the fact no specific
allegation against the instant petitioner had been made and
therefore the continuance of the criminal proceeding against him
would be an abuse of the process of law together with the fact
that the cognizance order is bad since it is in teeth of the law
laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of G.C.
Manjunath & Ors vs. Seetaram, reported as (2025) 5 SCC 390,
the impugned order taking cognizance is unsustainable.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.43644 of 2016(6) dt.13-01-2026
6/6
13. Accordingly the impugned order taking
cognizance dated 05.01.2016 passed by the learned J.M. First
Class, Gaya is quashed and set aside qua the petitioner only.
14. The present application is allowed.
(Sandeep Kumar, J)
tusharika/-
U
Checking your session…