Hanuman Soni vs. State Of U.P. And 3 Others

Held

The Court held that the petitioner failed to provide a plausible explanation for the sequence of events and that the bank's version of events, as presented in the counter-affidavit, largely remained unrebutted and appeared to have a "grain of truth." The Court noted that the petitioner had admitted in writing that the amount of Rs. 2,19,141.01 was not deposited by him on March 31, 2020, and was mistakenly transferred to his account, which he then transferred to the correct beneficiary after obtaining consent. The Court also observed that the Rs. 2 lakh deposit was initially intended for Rajesh Kumar Tiwari but was deposited into the petitioner's son's account after the initial attempt failed, and the petitioner had full knowledge of this. The Court found that the petitioner pursued the matter with "utterly false statements" and an "ulterior motive," taking advantage of some discrepancies at the bank. The Court emphasized that the law should not be used as a playground by unscrupulous litigants. Consequently, the petition was dismissed with costs. The Court did not expressly leave any issue undecided.

Facts

The petitioner, Hanuman Soni, filed an application under Section 156 Cr.P.C. alleging that he deposited Rs. 2 lakh on January 23, 2020, into the account of Rajesh Kumar Tiwari, but the amount was not transferred. He further alleged that on March 31, 2020, he deposited Rs. 2,19,141.01, which was also not deposited correctly. The petitioner claimed the bank officials misappropriated his money. The bank, in its counter-affidavit, stated that the first deposit of Rs. 2 lakh was attempted for Rajesh Kumar Tiwari but failed due to PAN linkage issues. The petitioner's son, Umesh Soni, then deposited the amount into his own account, retaining the original deposit receipt. Regarding the second amount, the bank stated it was mistakenly entered into the petitioner's account instead of Ashok Trading Company, and upon the petitioner's request and admission that he did not deposit it, it was transferred to the correct beneficiary. CCTV footage and bank records supported the bank's version. The Magistrate dismissed the application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., and the Additional Sessions Judge affirmed this decision.

Key Issues

1. Whether the learned Magistrate and the revisional court erred in dismissing the petitioner's application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. by not registering a First Information Report (FIR) against the bank officials, thereby failing to consider the allegations of misappropriation of funds under relevant provisions of the Indian Penal Code? Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner contended that the bank officials misappropriated his deposited funds and that the lower courts wrongly dismissed his application for registration of an FIR. He relied on his initial allegations of fraud and misappropriation. Revenue/State's Arguments: The respondents (State and bank officials) argued that the petitioner's allegations were false and unsubstantiated. They presented evidence, including CCTV footage and bank records, demonstrating that the amounts were either deposited into the petitioner's son's account due to his actions or mistakenly transferred and subsequently corrected with the petitioner's consent. They also argued that the petitioner lacked GST registration and bills for his CC Limit account, suggesting a motive to harass the bank. They relied on the findings of the Magistrate and the revisional court, as well as the judgment in Sukhwasi vs. State of U.P. 2007(9) ACC 739.