Yadvinder Singh Dhull vs State Of Haryana And Another

CRM-M No.25862 of 2026 -1-

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH


139

CRM-M No.25862 of 2026 (O&M)
Date of decision: 15.09.2026


Yadvinder Singh Dhull ... Petitioner

Vs.

State of Haryana and another ... Respondents

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA

Present:- Mr. Aditya Sanghi, Advocate,
for the petitioner.


Mr. Apoorv Garg, Addl. A.G., Haryana.


Mr. Naresh Kumar Chhokar, Advocate and
Mr. Ram Bhati, Advocate,
for respondent No.2.




MANISHA BATRA, J. (Oral)
1. Prayer in this petition has been made by the petitioner-
accused for quashing of order dated 13.02.2026 passed by the Court of
learned Additional Sessions Judge, Hisar in revision petition bearing CIS
CRR-44-2022 titled as Babita Devi v. Yadwinder Singh , whereby the
prayer made by the respondent for setting aside the order dated 16.03.2022
thereby discharging the petitioner for commission of offence punishable
under Section 409 of IPC and framing charges only under Sections 420,
467, 468, 471 and 477-A of IPC read with Section 120-B of IPC, in FIR
No.106 dated 20.03.2019 registered at Police Station Azad Nagar Hisar,
District Hisar, was allowed after modifying the order dated 16.03.2022 as
MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI
2026.09.15 11:23
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRM-M No.25862 of 2026 -2-

passed by the trial Magistrate and alternative charge under Section 409
read with Section 120-B of IPC was ordered to be framed against the

petitioner.
2. Brief facts relevant for the purpose of disposal of this petition
are that the aforementioned FIR was registered on the basis of a written
complaint submitted by the respondent-complainant Babita Devi alleging
therein that in March 2018, the bank Manager of Sarva Haryana Gramin
Bank, Arya Nagar Branch (For short “Bank”) had submitted a complaint
against her at Police Station Sadar Hisar alleging that she had executed an
agreement to sell a plot in favour of one Devender Singh son of Jai Singh,
resident of Adarsh Nagar Uchana Road, Jind and on the basis of the said
agreement, an amount of Rs.10 lakhs was taken on loan by the above
named Devender Singh from the Bank. The said amount of money was
directly transferred in her bank account shown to be opened in her name
in the Bank and an amount of Rs.8 lakhs had been withdrawn from the said
account on 16.11.2011. She alleged that she had never opened any such
bank account at the bank nor she had executed any agreement whatsoever
in favour of the abovesaid Devender Singh. The signatures as appended on
the documents of the Bank were also not her signatures. By alleging that
by misusing an account wrongly opened in her name, fraud was committed

and she was harassed, she prayed for taking action in the matter.
3. After registration of FIR, investigation proceedings were
initiated. During investigation, the petitioner, who was Bank Manager of
the concerned branch, was arrested on 12.03.2018. After completion of
investigation, challan was presented against the petitioner and he was
charge-sheeted for commission of offences punishable under Sections 420,
MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI
2026.09.15 11:23
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRM-M No.25862 of 2026 -3-

467, 468, 471 and 477-A read with Section 120-B of IPC. However, he had
not been charge-sheeted under Section 409 of IPC, though challan was

presented under that section also.
4. Feeling aggrieved, the respondent complainant has filed a
revision petition which was allowed, vide order dated 13.02.2026 and
alternative charge under Section 409 read with Section 120-B of IPC was

framed as against the petitioner by making the following observations:-
“7. In the present case, from the copy of charge sheet dated
16.03.2022, the prosecution story becomes clear that the accused
in conspiracy with each other got issued loan of Rs. 59,75,000/-
and disbursed it in the name of complainant but the same was
deposited in fake bank accounts and subsequently withdrawn.
One of the accused facing trial was a bank manager at the time
of occurrence as submitted by learned counsel for the revisionist
and therefore, his conduct in disbursing loan, which is public
money, in wrong accounts dishonestly, falls within the definition
of Section 409 IPC. Section 409 IPC provides that if a person
entrusted with some property in any manner or having any
dominion over such property in his capacity of a public servant
or a banker if commits criminal breach of trust in respect of that
property, he shall be punished. It is not in doubt that money in
the bank is kept in trust and the bank manager has dominion over
this property. If such property is transferred in the name of a
person who claims to be not a beneficiary and receiver of such
bank loan, it amounts to criminal breach of trust i.e. dishonest
misappropriation or dishonest use or disposal of such property.
The prosecution case is that not only the money of bank was
dishonestly disposed of, but subsequently it was used for the
personal benefit of the accused as well. Learned Court below has
not committed any error while concluding that the offence of
cheating and criminal breach of trust are exclusive in nature and
the same can not be tried at the same time for the same
MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI
2026.09.15 11:23
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRM-M No.25862 of 2026 -4-

transaction, but it has failed to take into consideration Section
221 Cr.P.C. Trial of the case is yet to be concluded and at this
stage it is doubtful which of the offences will be proved after

trial considering the nature of allegations.”
5. Feeling aggrieved, the present petition has been filed by the

petitioner-accused.
6. It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that he has
been falsely implicated in this case. He had retired from the post of Bank
Manager from the Bank on 12.03.2018. FIR was registered on 20.03.2019
after a lapse of more than seven years from the date of transactions which
had allegedly taken place in and around the year 2011. There is inordinate
delay in setting the criminal law into motion. A civil suit for recovery of
money has been filed by the Bank against the above named Devender and
two more persons namely, Rajesh Kumar and Vijender on 21.01.2019
which shows that the Bank has treated the alleged liability as recoverable
from the concerned borrowers. The allegations against him relate to the
alleged irregularity in loan processing, documentation, disbursement,
account opening or maintenance of bank accounts for which charges have
already been framed as against the petitioner under Sections 420, 467, 468,

471 and 477-A read with Section 120-B of IPC.
7. It is further argued that the ingredients for commission of
offence punishable under Section 409 of IPC are not at all attracted against
him since there is no material on record to show that he had dishonestly
misappropriated any Bank money or had converted the same to his own
use. The offences under Sections 420 and 409 of IPC are antithesis to each
other and he could not be charge-sheeted under both these provisions.
MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI
2026.09.15 11:23
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRM-M No.25862 of 2026 -5-

There is no evidence of any entrustment to the petitioner followed by
dishonest misappropriation or conversion. Different loan amounts were
sanctioned and were disbursed to the different borrowers by transfer of the
same into their respective bank accounts. Certain amounts of money were
withdrawn from those accounts through vouchers signed by the account
holders. In some cases demand drafts were got issued. The investigation
has showed a documentary trail of loan disbursement, account opening,
debit-credit vouchers, withdrawal vouchers, demand drafts, allotment
letters, agreement forms and balance confirmation letters and it is not a
case where any specific property or identifiable amount was entrusted to
the petitioner personally and he converted the same to his own use. As
such, there is no prima facie case to pass order for framing alternative
charge under Section 409 of IPC as against the petitioner. It is, therefore,
argued that the impugned order is liable to be set aside and the petition
deserves to be accepted. To fortify his argument, learned counsel for the
petitioner has placed reliance upon judgments titled as Asoke Basak v.
State of Maharashtra, 2010 (10) SCC 660 and Mr. Robert John D’Souza
and others v. Mr. Stephen V. Gomes and another, 2015(2) PLJ (Criminal)

385.
8. Per contra , learned State counsel assisted by learned counsel
for the respondent-complainant, has argued that the allegations against the
petitioner are specific and serious. He was Manager of the concerned Bank
in the year 2011. By hatching conspiracy with the co-accused, he had
opened account in the name of the respondent-complainant without her
consent and knowledge and on the basis of false and fabricated documents,
the said bank account was used for the purpose of transfer of an amount of
MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI
2026.09.15 11:23
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRM-M No.25862 of 2026 -6-

Rs.59,75,000/- which was got issued as loan in the name of the
complainant and the same was subsequent withdrawn. All these acts were
done in the active complicity with the petitioner. He was having dominion
over the money of the Bank. The same was transferred in the name of
person i.e. the complainant who does not claim to be a beneficiary and
receiver of the same. The ingredients for commission of offence
punishable under Section 409 of IPC have been prima facie attracted. The
learned trial Court did not commit any wrong in allowing the petition filed
by the respondent-complainant. It is, therefore, argued that the petition is

devoid of any merit and is liable to be dismissed.
9. This Court has heard the rival submissions of learned counsel

for the parties.
10. At the outset, it would be apposite to notice that Section 409
IPC is an aggravated form of criminal breach of trust. For attracting the
said provision, the basic ingredients of Section 405 IPC are required to be
satisfied, namely, that the accused was entrusted with property or with
dominion over property; that he dishonestly misappropriated or converted
the same to his own use, or dishonestly used or disposed of the same, or
wilfully suffered any other person to do so; and that such misappropriation,
conversion, use or disposal was in violation of any direction of law or of
any legal contract touching the discharge of such trust. In addition, the
entrustment or dominion must be in the capacity of a public servant,
banker, merchant, factor, broker, attorney or agent, as contemplated under
Section 409 IPC. In the present case, the petitioner was admittedly working
as the Manager of the concerned Bank at the relevant time. The prosecution
case is not that the petitioner was merely negligent in processing the loan
MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI
2026.09.15 11:23
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRM-M No.25862 of 2026 -7-

documents. Rather, specific allegations have been levelled that he, in
connivance with the co-accused, facilitated opening of a bank account in
the name of the complainant without her knowledge and consent and
thereafter facilitated disbursement of the loan amount of Rs.59,75,000/- in
the said account on the basis of false and fabricated documents. The
prosecution further alleges that the amount so disbursed was subsequently
withdrawn. Thus, the allegations, if taken at their face value, disclose a
chain of acts in which the petitioner, while acting as the Bank Manager,
facilitated the dealing with and disposal of the Bank's money in a manner

contrary to the purpose for which the loan amount was sanctioned.
11. The submission that there was no personal entrustment of any
specific amount of money to the petitioner cannot, at this stage, be
accepted as sufficient to rule out the applicability of Section 409 IPC. The
expression "entrustment" also includes entrustment of dominion over
property. In the facts of the present case, the allegation is that the petitioner,
by virtue of his position as Bank Manager, was exercising control and
dominion over the Bank's funds and was instrumental in facilitating their
disbursement into an account allegedly opened in the name of a person
who had not sought or received the loan. Whether such dominion was
exercised dishonestly and whether the petitioner thereby dishonestly used,
disposed of or wilfully suffered the Bank's money to be dealt with in the
alleged manner are questions which require appreciation of the evidence
collected during investigation and cannot be conclusively determined at
the stage of framing of charge.
12. It is also significant that the allegation against the petitioner
is accompanied by an allegation of conspiracy under Section 120-B IPC.
MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI
2026.09.15 11:23
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRM-M No.25862 of 2026 -8-

The prosecution case, therefore, has to be examined not by isolating one
individual act attributed to the petitioner but by considering the
circumstances and the alleged acts of the accused persons as a whole. The
opening of the account in the complainant's name, the alleged use of forged
documents, sanction and disbursement of the loan amount and its
subsequent withdrawal constitute circumstances which, at this stage,
provide sufficient basis for the Court to proceed on the allegation that the
petitioner may have consciously participated in the alleged transaction.
Whether the prosecution will ultimately be able to establish dishonest
intention, conspiracy and the necessary ingredients of criminal breach of
trust is a matter for trial.
13. The contention that the petitioner has already been charged
under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 477-A IPC and, therefore, an
additional charge under Section 409 IPC cannot be framed, is also without
merit. At the stage of framing of charge, the Court is not required to finally
determine which particular offence would ultimately stand proved. The
learned revisional Court has, keeping in view Section 221 Cr.P.C., directed
framing of an alternative charge under Section 409 read with Section 120-
B IPC, specifically observing that it is yet to be determined during trial as
to which of the offences would ultimately be established from the
evidence. The framing of an alternative charge, in the circumstances, does
not amount to a finding of guilt against the petitioner.
14. The plea regarding delay in registration of the FIR and the
pendency of civil proceedings for recovery of the loan amount also does
not, by itself, furnish a ground for quashing the additional charge. The civil
proceedings instituted by the Bank against the borrowers may have their
MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI
2026.09.15 11:23
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRM-M No.25862 of 2026 -9-

own consequences but the same cannot erase the allegations of fabrication
of documents, opening of a bank account in the name of the complainant
without her consent and alleged dishonest disbursement of the Bank's
funds. At this stage, the Court is concerned with whether the material on
record gives rise to a strong prima facie suspicion regarding commission
of the offence and not with the ultimate proof of the allegations.
15. The judgments relied upon by learned counsel for the
petitioner lay down the correct legal position that mere holding of a
particular office or mere dominion over property would not by itself
constitute an offence under Section 409 IPC. There has to be material
indicating entrustment or dominion coupled with dishonest
misappropriation, conversion, use or disposal of the property. However,
those judgments are distinguishable on their facts. In Asoke Basak’s case
(supra) , the Hon’ble Supreme Court found that there was no specific
averment showing that the property had been entrusted to the appellant or
that he had dominion over the same and dishonestly converted it to his own
use. Likewise, in Robert John D'Souza’s case (supra) , the complaint itself
did not disclose the essential ingredients of entrustment and also failed to
show that the accused had acted in the requisite capacity contemplated
under Section 409 IPC. In the present case, on the other hand, the petitioner
was admittedly the Bank Manager and there are specific allegations
regarding his alleged participation in opening the account in the
complainant's name and facilitating disbursement of the Bank's money
pursuant to the alleged conspiracy. Therefore, the ratio of the said
judgments, though applicable to the legal test, does not warrant

interference in the peculiar facts of the present case.
MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI
2026.09.15 11:23
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRM-M No.25862 of 2026 -10-

16. Consequently, this Court is of the considered view that the
material available on record, when examined at the stage of framing of
charge, raises a prima facie case requiring the petitioner to face trial for the
alternative charge under Section 409 read with Section 120-B IPC. The
learned revisional Court has neither committed any patent illegality nor
acted beyond the scope of its jurisdiction in directing framing of the said
alternative charge. The present petition, being devoid of merit, is
accordingly dismissed.


15.09.2026 (MANISHA BATRA)

Waseem R. Ansari Waseem R. Ansari Waseem R. Ansari Waseem R. Ansari
JUDGE




Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No


Whether reportable Yes/No




MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI
2026.09.15 11:23
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document