Prosecution quashed where continuation of proceedings constituted a gross abuse of the court’s process.

The complainant deposited ₹64,618 with Canara Bank, Buddha Marg Branch, Patna, on 26 October 2011 for two years and was issued Fixed Deposit Certificate No. 125896.

The complainant alleged that, upon approaching the petitioner on 29 September 2014 for a loan against the certificate, he was informed that the certificate was unavailable.

He subsequently learned that a loan had been disbursed in his account, which he repaid on 1 October 2014, and was handed another certificate bearing No. 692429.

He alleged that the accused persons had conspired to renew the deposit without his consent and had reduced the applicable interest rate from 9.25% to 8.8%, causing him financial loss.

The petitioner, a Canara Bank employee, sought quashing of the order dated 21 September 2015 by which the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Patna, took cognizance of offences under Sections 406, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code in Kotwali P.S. Case No. 15 of 2015.

Whether continuation of the criminal prosecution against the petitioner for offences under Sections 406, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 34 IPC amounted to an abuse of the process of the Court warranting exercise of inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C.?

Whether the order dated 21 September 2015 taking cognizance was passed mechanically, without proper application of judicial mind to the allegations and material on record?

Whether the alleged non-compliance with the affidavit requirement concerning an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., as discussed in Priyanka Srivastava v. State of Uttar Pradesh, affected the sustainability of the prosecution?

The Court exercised its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to prevent abuse of the process of court and secure the ends of justice.

It considered the principles in Priyanka Srivastava v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2015) 6 SCC 287, concerning the requirement of an affidavit and prior recourse to the remedies under Sections 154(1) and 154(3) Cr.P.C. before seeking directions under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C.

It also relied upon State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335, particularly categories 3 and 7 of paragraph 102, which recognise circumstances where criminal proceedings may be quashed because the allegations do not disclose an offence or the prosecution is manifestly attended with mala fide or vexatious intent.

The Court further considered Pepsi Foods Ltd. v. Special Judicial Magistrate, (1998) 5 SCC 749, which requires the Magistrate to apply judicial mind before issuing process and to assess whether the allegations, taken at face value, disclose a prima facie case.

The Court considered the allegations concerning the alleged unauthorised renewal of the fixed deposit, alteration of the interest rate, use of another certificate and the petitioner’s alleged role as a bank employee.

It also considered the petitioner’s submissions that the initial deposit had matured, that no renewal application had originally been submitted, and that any subsequent renewal and applicable interest rate were governed by prevailing bank norms.

Against this background, the Court took into account the principles governing quashing under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the alleged procedural deficiency in invoking Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., the Bhajan Lal categories and the requirement of meaningful judicial application of mind under Pepsi Foods.

Without undertaking a detailed evidentiary assessment, the Court concluded that, considering the nature of the allegations and the applicable precedents, continuation of the proceedings against the petitioner would constitute a gross abuse of the process of the Court.

Accordingly, it quashed the order dated 21 September 2015 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Patna, taking cognizance in Kotwali P.S. Case No. 15 of 2015 for offences under Sections 406, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 34 IPC.

The criminal miscellaneous application was allowed.