IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P.(C) No. 886 of 2009
--------
Mira Kumari ... Petitioner
Versus
Central Bank of India & ors. ... Respondents
--------
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D.N.PATEL
--------
For the petitioner: Mr. Pradip Gangopadhyay, Advocate
For the respondents: Mrs. Anubha R. Choudhary, Advocate
--------
Order No. 07: Dated 26th July, 2011
Per D.N.Patel, J.
1. The present writ petition has been preferred mainly for the reasons
that the petitioner was never issued any cheque book, but, from her
bank account a sum of Rs.1,34,000/- has been taken away by
somebody else and the respondent-Bank is in connivance with such
type of withdrawal of money and, therefore, the respondent-Bank
must return Rs.1,34,000/-, which has been withdrawn from the the
bank account of the petitioner bearing Savings Bank Account No.
53718 with the respondent-bank.
2. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that as stated
in paragraph no.8 of the writ petition, no cheque book was issued to
the petitioner and, therefore, no question whatsoever arises of
withdrawal of any amount through cheque. The respondent-Bank
has not appreciated the fact that if any amount is to be withdrawn
through cheque, cheque book must have been issued to the
petitioner and, therefore, the amount of Rs.1,34,000/-, which has
been withdrawn through different cheques, should be returned to the
petitioner with interest.
3. Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the present
petitioner was issued a cheque book having cheque nos.360051 to
360060 and out of these ten cheques, several cheques were used
by the petitioner and under her signature, several amounts have
been withdrawn from her Savings Account. Unnecessarily, the
petitioner is insisting that no cheque book was ever issued to her
and without her signature, the money was withdrawn. In fact, the
2.
respondent-Bank has filed a First Information report and similarly,
the petitioner had also filed a complaint case, in which handwriting
expert's opinion was also taken with regard to the signature upon
the cheque and it was found out that all the signatures belong to the
petitioner. Thus, all the cheques, which were utilized out of the
aforesaid cheque book, were signed by the petitioner and the
amounts were withdrawn by her and, therefore, a summary report
was filed by the police upon completion of investigation under
Section 169 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and upon this
summary report, filed by the police, opportunity of hearing was given
to the complainant i.e. the petitioner. Never any objection was filed
by the petitioner about the correctness of investigation at the hands
of the police. This, both the criminal matters were brought to an end,
upon the report filed by the police.
4. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the respondents
that thereafter, the petitioner has moved the District Consumer
Disputes Redressal Forum on the very same allegations and for the
very same amount. However, no relief was granted by the District
Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum and again the petitioner
moved the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission,
Ranchi, where also no relief was granted to the petitioner and
thereafter, for the very same relief the present writ petition has been
filed by the petitioner. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the
respondents that a cheque book, containing ten cheques, was
issued to the petitioner and the petitioner has utilized several
cheques and has withdrawn the amount and, therefore, no question
whatsoever of retaining the aforesaid amount arises and, thus, the
present writ petition may be dismissed with cost.
5. Having heard learned counsel for both the parties and considering
the facts and circumstances of the case, it appears:
(a) The petitioner was issued a cheque book bearing cheque nos.
360051 to 360060 and, therefore, the allegation, levelled in
paragraph no.8 of the writ petition, are absolutely false. Out of the
aforesaid ten cheques, few cheques were signed by the petitioner,
as detailed herein below:
3.
Sl.No. Date Cheque No. Amount
1 14.02.2000
360051 Rs.9,000/-
2. 16.02.2000 360052 Rs.20,000/-
3. 18.02.2000 360056 Rs.25,000/-
4. 19.02.2000 360055 Rs.20,000/-
5. 22.02.2000 360057 Rs.30,000/-
6. 24.02.2000 360058 Rs.30,000/-
(b) The aforesaid all the cheques were signed by the petitioner,
but, the petitioner is denying the fact, by saying that no cheque book
was issued to the petitioner and, therefore, no question of signing
them by the petitioner whatsoever arises.
This contention of the petitioner is absolutely false and
frivolous and, therefore, is not accepted by this Court, because
previously First Information Report was filed by the Bank and
similarly criminal complaint was also filed by the petitioner and
ultimately, after investigation, the police filed summary report under
Section 169 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, after obtaining
handwriting expert’s opinion, in which also it is stated that all the
cheques were signed by the petitioner and in the complaint case,
opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioner to lodge
objections, but, no objection was filed by the petitioner before the
court, where the complaint was filed by the petitioner and, thus, both
the criminal cases were brought to an end, since the cheques were
signed by the petitioner.
(c) Thereafter, the petitioner had moved before the District
Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum on the very same allegations
and for the very same amount of Rs.1,34,000/-. No relief was
granted by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum.
Thereafter, the petitioner approached the State Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission. There also no relief was granted to the
petitioner. These orders, have been accepted by the petitioner and
has never challenged them before any court/forum.
(d) The cheque book was issued to the petitioner and few of the
cheques were signed by the petitioner and the amount was
withdrawn and, therefore, this amount was rightly debited by the
respondent-Bank.
6. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, there is no
4.
substance in this writ petition and hence the same is hereby
dismissed with a cost of Rs.2,000/-, to be deposited by the petitioner
with he respondent-Bank, failing which the Bank shall recover the
amount of cost, in accordance with law.
( D.N. Patel, J. )
A.K.Verma/