Court rejects bank's plea for FIR against its customers
- Varun Gandhi hits back at cousin Priyanka over 'astray' remark, says she crossed 'lakshman rekha of decency'
- Supreme Court grants recognition to transgenders as third category of sex
- SC rejects Kejriwal's plea to stay trial in defamation case filed by Kapil Sibal's son
- Unethical, betrayal: Prime Minister Manmohan Singhâs daughter voices family anger
- Modi equates Rahul with kids, says 'toffee' has caught his fancy after 'balloon'
District Judge and Additional Sessions Judge R K Gauba dismissed the PNB plea, made against Metropolitan Magistrate Ankit Singla's order, which too had dismissed it.
In its complaint, the bank had said Sobha Rani Pattnaik and her husband Sudhanshu Bhushan Pattnaik had opened a current account in its Lado Sarai branch in South Delhi on March 26.
It said the couple approached the bank on March 27 for issuance of ATM card in respect of their current account but the bank wrongly issued them the ATM of another customer M/s Shubhadra Store and "they withdrew Rs 10,68,077 from the ATM
account knowing fully well that it did not belong to them as they had only Rs 17,975 in their account."
The bank thus sought registration of the FIR against them for offences of criminal breach of trust and cheating and under other provisions of the Indian Penal Code.
The magistrate, however, had held that basic requirement for the offence of cheating is that there should be prior inducement with dishonest intention.
"In the present case from the complaint there is no fact which can be deduced that accused number 1 (Sobha Rani) and 2 (Sudhanshu) induced the complainant in any manner for delivering them the ATM card of another customer," the magistrate had said.
The magistrate had held that though there was "prima facie misappropriation" by the couple, "the essential element (for the offence of criminal breach of trust) of entrusting property was missing as the bank inadvertently gave the ATM card of another customer to proposed accused."
The sessions court upheld the magistrate's order saying, "the magistrate has declined the prayer for directions to the police to investigate the matter for the reasons that entire evidence is within the reach of the complainant and no custodial interrogation or field investigation is necessary."
The bank has, however, been allowed to lead evidence in support of its complaint under section 200 (examination of complainant) of the CrPC.
- Modi wave is a myth, says Siddaramaiah
- In Mandya, discordant notes in show of Cong unity
- ‘Fakir’ Jankar takes on Pawar might in battle against ‘dynasty’
- Ballot paper in Braille to help blind persons cast their vote
- AAP volunteer attacked
- 64-year-old fights for Punjabi language, gets little support from political parties
- BJP dancing to the tune of RSS: Sonia Gandhi | The Indian Express
- After Sanjay Baru, former coal secretary Parakh’s book embarrasses PM; ‘Singh had little political authority’
- How can Modi honour women if he can’t mention his wife, asks Rahul
- Rahul Gandhi insulting Ambedkar by taking credit for laws: Narendra Modi