Section 482 permits quashing prosecution where investigation finds no incriminating material against accused bank manager.

The applicant, original accused No. 2, was implicated in C.R. No. I-15 of 2013, registered for offences under Sections 406, 409, 420, 463, 465, 466, 467, 468, 471 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code.

The FIR alleged that accused No. 1, Tusharbhai Narottambhai Patel, forged vouchers and other documents, represented them as genuine, and misappropriated amounts deposited by clients of Bharuch District Cooperative Bank Ltd.

It was alleged that accused No. 1 transferred various amounts to a joint bank account held by the applicant and his sister and signed vouchers for withdrawal of those amounts.

The applicant sought quashing of the FIR, charge-sheet and Sessions Case No. 1233 of 2015 under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

He relied on earlier orders quashing the proceedings against similarly situated bank managers, including Dipakkumar Pandya and Arjunsinh Sanglod.

The State and respondent No. 2 submitted that no incriminating material had been found against the applicant; respondent No. 2 also stated that the misappropriated amount had been redeposited in the bank.

Whether the FIR, charge-sheet and consequential criminal proceedings against the applicant disclosed sufficient material constituting the alleged offences under Sections 406, 409, 420, 463, 465, 466, 467, 468, 471 and 201 IPC.

Whether the High Court should exercise its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC to quash the FIR, charge-sheet and pending Sessions Case against the applicant where the investigation disclosed no incriminating material against him.

The Court applied Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, which preserves the High Court’s inherent power to prevent abuse of the process of court and to secure the ends of justice.

It considered the offences alleged under Sections 406, 409, 420, 463, 465, 466, 467, 468, 471 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code, which respectively concern criminal breach of trust, aggravated breach of trust by specified persons, cheating, forgery, forgery of specified records and valuable securities, use of forged documents as genuine, and causing disappearance of evidence.

The governing principle applied was that criminal proceedings may be quashed where the investigation and charge-sheet disclose no sufficient or incriminating material connecting the accused with the alleged offences.

The Court noted that the applicant had been implicated primarily in the context of his position as a bank manager, while the allegations of forging vouchers and misappropriating bank deposits principally concerned accused No. 1.

The investigation had not produced any incriminating material capable of supporting cognizance or continuation of the prosecution against the applicant.

The State and the complainant’s representative both accepted that no such material had been found.

The Court also considered the fact that proceedings against similarly situated bank managers had previously been quashed.

In these circumstances, continuation of the prosecution against the applicant would not advance the statutory allegations and would amount to an abuse of process; therefore, the inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC was properly exercised.

It quashed and set aside C.R. No. I-15 of 2013, the charge-sheet arising from it, Sessions Case No. 1233 of 2015 pending before the Sessions Court, Bharuch, and all consequential proceedings, insofar as they concerned the applicant.

The rule was made absolute and direct service was permitted.