Patna High Court – Orders
Kul Bhushan Jain vs State Of Bihar And Anr on 20 July, 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.6690 of 2017
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-3999 Year-2012 Thana- VAISALI COMPLAINT CASE
District- Vaishali
======================================================
Kul Bhushan Jain Son of Sri Nem Chand, Zonal Manager, Bank of India,
Chanakya Tower, R. Block Police Station Sachivalaya District patna
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Krishna Kumar Tulisyan, Son of Vishwanath Tulisyan, Resident of Village-
Bhagwanpur, Police Station Bhagwanpur, District Vaishali at Hajipur.
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Rupak Kumar, Advocate
Mr. Vikrant Kumar, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Dr. Mrityunjaya Kr. Gautam, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRAVEEN KUMAR
ORAL ORDER
6 20-07-2026
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned
APP for the State.
2. On three dates, when the matter was called upon for
hearing, the learned counsel for the Opposite Party No.2 did not
appear.
3. This application has been filed for setting aside the
impugned order dated 20.07.2013 passed by the learned Judicial
Magistrate-1st Class, Vaishali at Hajipur, in Complaint Case No.
3999 of 2016, whereby and whereunder the cognizance has been
taken under Sections 323 and 504 of the Indian Penal Code and
Section 138 of N.I. Act against the petitioner.
4. As per the allegation, one Krishna Kumar Tuilsyan,
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.6690 of 2017(6) dt.20-07-2026
2/11
the owner of Krishna Vastralaya, claims to have been given a
cash credit forcibly of Rs. 5,00,000/- through Account No.
465130100000088, for which customer I.D. No. 822352722 was
alloted. The complainant made Dr. Acchutanand, the then
Branch Manager, Bhagwanpur Branch, Bank of India at Hajipur
in Vaishali and Kul Bhushan Jain, the then Zonal Manager,
Bank of India, Patna, accused in the complaint. The complainant
made allegation against the Branch Manager for demanding Rs.
1,000/- per month for ensuring smooth operation of the credit
account, which was protested by the complainant. It is further
alleged that eleven cheques issued by the complainant in month
of February 2012 to his customers which were presented to the
Bank by his customer in whose favour the cheques were issued,
but all the eleven cheques were dishonoured on the ground of
insufficient funds, which fact of dishonour was brought to the
notice of the Branch Manager, who did not give satisfactory
reply. It is further alleged that Kul Bhushan Jain, the then Zonal
Manager, Bank of India, Patna, visited Kiratpur Rajaram
Branch, Bhagwanpur, Hajipur at Vaishali on 07.09.2012 for
inaugurating the Branch and he informed the Zonal Manager
about his problem. The complainant made allegation that Kul
Bhushan Jain, the then Zonal Manager for the smooth
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.6690 of 2017(6) dt.20-07-2026
3/11
transaction of the credit account. It is further alleged that the
dishonour of cheques issued by him despite there being a
sufficient amount in the account dented his reputation
professionally and his business got damaged. Thereafter, he got
the legal notice sent to the accused through his advocate.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted
that the petitioner is the Zonal Manager of the Bank of India and
he has got no concern with the affairs of the concerned branch.
It has further submitted that he has no role in the day to day
operation of the branch and also regarding the dishonour of the
cheques that has been alleged against the Branch Manager. It
has further been submitted that none of the ingredients of the
offences in which cognizance has been taken is made out
against the petitioner. It has further been submitted that as
against the offence punishable under Section 138 of the
Negotiable Instrument Act, no offence is made out as petitioner
is not the signatory to the cheque, while it is strange that the
complainant is himself the signatory of the cheque. Learned
counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that no offence
under Sections 323 and 504 of the Indian Penal Code is made
out against the petitioner as the statement in the complaint and
the solemn affirmation of the complaint are self-contradictory as
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.6690 of 2017(6) dt.20-07-2026
4/11
in the complaint petition, the complainant has stated that he was
assaulted in the presence of other shopkeepers, but in the
solemn affirmation he confines to the allegation that he was
only abused and as such the statement of the complainant does
not inspire confidence. Moreover, in the complaint petition,
there is no allegation of abuse and contradictorily, in the solemn
affirmation, there is allegation of assault. It has further been
submitted that the prosecution against the petitioner is attended
with malice, personal vendetta, and to spite a personal score.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed
reliance on a judgment of this Court reported in 2017 (1) PLJR
615 and has referred to para-61 of the said judgment, drawing
the attention of this Court as regards the landmark, judgment
rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of
Haryana versus Bhajanlal, reported in 1992 Supplementary
(1) SCC Page 335. Para-61 of the said judgment is reproduced
hereinbelow:-
61. In the matter of State of
Haryana & Ors. vs. Bhajan Lal and Ors.
(supra), the Supreme Court laid down the
principles on which the Court can quash the
criminal proceedings under Article 226 of
the Constitution of India or under Section
482 of the Cr.P.C. These are as under:-
“102. In the backdrop of the
interpretation of the various relevant
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.6690 of 2017(6) dt.20-07-2026
5/11provisions of the Code under Chapter XIV
and of the principles of law enunciated by
this Court in a series of decisions relating to
the exercise of the extraordinary power
under Article 226 or the inherent powers
under Section 482 of the Code which we
have extracted and reproduced above, we
give the following categories of cases by way
of illustration wherein such power could be
exercised either to prevent abuse of the
process of any Court or otherwise to secure
the ends of justice, though it may not be
possible to lay down any precise, clearly
defined and sufficiently channelised and
inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to
give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of
cases wherein such power should be
exercised.
(1) Where the allegations made in
the First Information Report or the
complaint, even if they are taken at their face
value and accepted in their entirety do not
prima facie constitute any offence or make
out a case against the accused.
(2) Where the allegations in the
First Information Report and other
materials, if any, accompanying the F.I.R. do
not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying
an investigation by police officers under
Section 156(1) of the Code except under an
order of a Magistrate within the purview of
Section 155(2) of the Code.
(3) Where the uncontroverted
allegations made in the FIR or complaint
and the evidence collected in support of the
same do not disclose the commission of any
offence and make out a case against the
accused.
(4) Where the allegations in the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.6690 of 2017(6) dt.20-07-2026
6/11F.I.R. do not constitute a cognizable offence
but constitute only a non-cognizable offence,
no investigation is permitted by a police
officer without an order of a Magistrate as
contemplated under Section 155(2) of the
Code.
(5) Where the allegations made in
the FIR or complaint are so absurd and
inherently improbable on the basis of which
no prudent person can ever reach a just
conclusion that there is sufficient ground for
proceeding against the accused.
(6) Where there is an express legal
bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the
Code or the concerned Act (under which a
criminal proceeding is instituted) to the
institution and continuance of the
proceedings and/or where there is a specific
provision in the Code or the concerned Act,
providing efficacious redress for the
grievance of the aggrieved party.
(7) Where a criminal proceeding is
manifestly attended with mala fide and/or
where the proceeding is maliciously
instituted with an ulterior motive for
wreaking vengeance on the accused and with
a view to spite him due to private and
personal grudge.”
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further
placed reliance on another judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court
reported in 2013 (4) Supreme Court Cases 505 and has
referred paragraph 14, 15, 16 and 17 which are reproduced
hereinbelow:-
14. Be that as it may, as held by
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.6690 of 2017(6) dt.20-07-2026
7/11this Court, summoning of accused in a
criminal case is a serious matter. Hence,
criminal law cannot be set into motion as a
matter of course. The order of the
Magistrate summoning the accused must
reflect that he has applied his mind to the
facts of the case and the law applicable
thereto. The Magistrate has to record his
satisfaction with regard to the existence of a
prima facie case on the basis of specific
allegations made in the complaint supported
by satisfactory evidence and other material
on record.
15. In Madhavrao Jiwajirao
Scindia v. Sambhajirao Chandrojirao Angre²
this Court held as under: (SCC p. 695, para 7)
“7. The legal position is well
settled that when a prosecution at the initial
stage is asked to be quashed, the test to be
applied by the court is as to whether the
uncontroverted allegations as made prima
facie establish the offence. It is also for the
court to take into consideration any special
features which appear in a particular case to
consider whether it is expedient and in the
interest of justice to permit a prosecution to
continue. This is so on the basis that the
court cannot be utilised for any oblique
purpose and where in the opinion of the
court chances of an ultimate conviction are
bleak and, therefore, no useful purpose is
likely to be served by allowing a criminal
prosecution to continue, the court may while
taking into consideration the special facts of
a case also quash the proceeding even
though it may be at a preliminary stage.”
16. In Punjab National Bank v.
Surendra Prasad Sinha, a complaint was
lodged by the complainant for prosecution
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.6690 of 2017(6) dt.20-07-2026
8/11
under Sections 409, 109 and 114 IPC
against the Chairman, the Managing
Director of the Bank and a host of officers
alleging, inter alia, that as against the loan
granted to one Sriman Narain Dubey, the
complainant and his wife stood as
guarantors and executed security bond and
handed over fixed deposit receipt. Since the
principal debtor defaulted in payment of
debt, the Branch Manager of the Bank on
maturity of the said fixed deposit adjusted a
part of the amount against the said loan. The
complainant alleged that the debt became
barred by limitation and, therefore, the
liability of the guarantors also stood
extinguished. It was, therefore, alleged that
the officers of the Bank criminally embezzled
the said amount with dishonest intention to
save themselves from financial obligation.
The Magistrate without adverting whether
the allegations in the complaint prima facie
make out an offence charged for, in a
mechanical manner, issued the process
against all the accused persons. The High
Court refused to quash the complaint and
the matter finally came to this Court.
Allowing the appeal and quashing the
complaint, this Court held as under:
(Surendra Prasad Sinha case6, SCC pp.
504-05, рага 6)
“6. It is also salutary to note that
judicial process should not be an instrument
of oppression or needless harassment. The
complaint was laid impleading the
Chairman, the Managing Director of the
Bank by name and a host of officers. There
lies responsibility and duty on the
Magistracy to find out whether the accused
concerned should be legally responsible for
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.6690 of 2017(6) dt.20-07-2026
9/11the offence charged for. Only on satisfying
that the law casts liability or creates offence
against the juristic person or the persons
impleaded then only process would be
issued. At that stage the court would be
circumspect and judicious in exercising
discretion and should take all the relevant
facts and circumstances into consideration
before issuing process lest it would be an
instrument in the hands of the private
complaint as vendetta to harass the persons
needlessly. Vindication of majesty of justice
and maintenance of law and order in the
society are the prime objects of criminal
justice but it would not be the means to
wreak personal vengeance. Considered from
any angle we find that the respondent had
abused the process and laid complaint
against all the appellants without any prima
facie case to harass them for vendetta.”
17. In Maksud Saiyed v. State of
Gujarat, this Court while discussing
vicarious liability observed as under: (SCC
p. 674, para 13)
“13. Where a jurisdiction is
exercised on a complaint petition filed in
terms of Section 156(3) or Section 200 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure, the Magistrate
is required to apply his mind. The Penal
Code does not contain any provision for
attaching vicarious liability on the part of
the Managing Director or the Directors of
the Company when the accused is the
Company. The learned Magistrate failed to
pose unto himself the correct question viz. as
to whether the complaint petition, even if
given face value and taken to be correct in
its entirety, would lead to the conclusion that
the respondents herein were personally
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.6690 of 2017(6) dt.20-07-2026
10/11liable for any offence. The Bank is a body
corporate. Vicarious liability of the
Managing Director and Director would
arise provided any provision exists in that
behalf in the statute. Statutes indisputably
must contain provision fixing such vicarious
liabilities.”
8. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further
submitted that the inquiry witnesses does not allege anything
against the petitioner rather the same is alleged against the
Branch Manager of the Bank regarding payment of Rs. 1,000/-
as convenience fee, so as to facilitate the business of the
complainant.
9. Learned counsel for the State opposed the prayer of
the petitioner and has submitted that petitioner, being on a
responsible post, has joined hands with the other co-accused,
who happens to be the Branch Manager of the Bank.
10. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and
perused the records.
11. Upon perusal of records and submissions
advanced on behalf of the parties, it is clear that petitioner was
not signatory to the cheque. The allegations with respect to
offence under Section 323 and 504 is not made out.
12. In view of the fact that complainant has given a
self-contradictory statement in his complaint, wherein the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.6690 of 2017(6) dt.20-07-2026
11/11
complainant has not alleged anything about the abuse, but
surprisingly in his solemn affirmation, the complainant does not
allege anything about the assault, and instead specifically states
that only abuse was done, the case becomes untenable.
13. The facts reveal that the present prosecution
against the petitioner is attended with malice, personal vendetta,
to spite personal score and to wreak vengeance, as the petitioner
was posted on a high post of the Bank. The present prosecution
against the petitioner is an abuse of process of law and upon
such finding, the impugned order dated 20.07.2013 is hereby
quashed as against the petitioner.
14. This application is allowed.
(Praveen Kumar, J)
shivam/-
U T
