2025:UHC:9074 HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Criminal Misc. Application (U/s 482 Cr.P.C) No. 925 of 2017 8th October, 2025 V.K.Gupta --------Applicant Versus State Of Uttarakhand & another ------Respondents ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Presence:- Mr. Parikshit Saini and Ms. Sukhwani Singh, Advocates for the applicant. Mr. Deepak Bisht, learned Deputy Advocate General assisted by Mr. Devendra Singh, Brief Holder for the State. Mr. Mahaveer Singh Tyagi, learned Senior Advocate, assisted by Mr. Chandra Prakash, learned counsel for the respondent no.2. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Hon'ble Subhash Upadhyay, J. (Oral) By means of present Criminal Misc. Application u/s 482 Cr.P.C., the applicant is seeking quashing of the order dated 29.04.2016, passed in Misc. Case No. 180 of 2016 (arising out of the Case Crime No. 61 of 2013), under Section 409 of IPC, pending in the Court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Laksar, Haridwar, District Haridwar. 2. Brief facts of the case in the nutshell are as follows: The applicant before the Court was posted as Chief Manager, Punjab National Bank Branch Laksar, District Haridwar. During his tenure as Chief Manager, an Application under Section 156 (3) of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, was moved by the respondent no.2 on 15.12.2012 with the allegations that on 1 2025:UHC:9074 07.08.2012 an amount of Rs. 4 lakhs was deposited by him in the Bank and after the deposit of the said amount, when the respondent no.2 requested for making entry in the Passbook then he was told to come on the next date. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the respondent no.2 that on the next date, the respondent no.2 could not went to the Bank as the brother of the respondent no.2 had died on 08.08.2012 and when the respondent no.2 went to the Bank on 25.10.2012, then it was revealed that in his account only Rs. 1214/- amount was balance and there was no entry of the amount of Rs. 4 lakhs, which he had deposited on 07.08.2012. 3. An application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. was, as such, filed on the ground that criminal breach of trust has been committed by the Bank Manager (applicant herein), Field Officer and the Cashier Shri Rajendra. The aforesaid application under section 156(3) Cr.P.C. was allowed and vide order dated 22.2.2013, a direction was issued to lodge an FIR and to investigate the matter and a Case Crime No. 61 of 2013 was lodged under Section 409 of IPC. On 03.03.2014, a Final Report was submitted and on a Protest Petition filed by the respondent no.2 against the said Final Report, the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Laksar allowed the said Petition and vide order dated 29.04.2016, the Final Report submitted on 03.03.2014 was quashed and directions were issued to proceed in the matter as a State case by registering the case of respondent no.2,as State case, i.e., State vs. V.K.Gupta and others and the applicant and other persons were summoned. Against the said order, present C-482 2 2025:UHC:9074 Application has been filed. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant had no role to play in the matter and, in fact, the applicant himself on 22.08.2012 had made a complaint to the Police Station as it was found that the Clerk Rajendra Singh, who was the Head Cashier was taking the cash, giving receipts to the Bank customers but not depositing the said cash in the account and on his complaint, an FIR was lodged as Case Crime No. 330 of 2012, under Section 409 of IPC, at Police Station Kotwali Laksar. He further submits that Rajendra Singh was arrested and on investigation it was found that more than Rupees Three Crores of account holders was embezzled and charge-sheet was submitted against him and cognizance was taken on 22.11.2013. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the Final Report was submitted by the Police Authorities rightly and the impugned order dated 29.04.2016, by which, the Protest Petition of respondent no.2 was allowed is not proper, as such, present case against him is liable to be quashed as against one incident two charge-sheets cannot be filed. 6. Per contra, learned counsel for the State and respondent no. 2 submits that cogent reasons have been given for rejecting the Final Report and an amount of Rupees Three Crores cannot be embezzled by a Cashier alone and the applicant being the Manager of the Bank cannot absolve himself from the liability of such huge amount of embezzlement under his nose by simply contending that he had lodged an FIR against the 3 2025:UHC:9074 Cashier. Moreover, the role of the applicant would be investigated and there is no illegality in the order passed by the learned ACJM, Laksar in allowing the Protest Petition and rejecting the Final Report. 7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the records, this Court is of the opinion that the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Laksar vide impugned order dated 29.04.2016 has rightly allowed the Protest Petition filed by the respondent no.2. Cogent reasons have been given as to why the Final Report submitted was not to be believed. 8. There is no perversity or infirmity in the findings recorded and the scope of interference under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is very limited and Hon’ble Supreme Court in catena of Judgments has held that such power is to be exercised sparingly and when the High Court is called upon to adjudicate an application seeking to quash the proceedings it is to see whether prima facie an offence is made out or not. If a prima facie offence is made out disclosing the ingredients of the offence alleged against an accused, the Court cannot quash the criminal proceedings. 9. In view of the above, the C-482 Application lacks merit and is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs. (Subhash Upadhyay, J.) 08.10.2025 Kaushal 4