Fraudulent Bank Transactions: Supreme Court Quashes Summoning of SBI Clerk in ₹55 Lakh Embezzlement Case

The case of Meenu Prakash Bhantu vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. revolves around the wrongful summoning of a bank clerk in an embezzlement case involving ₹55.2 lakh withdrawn fraudulently from a complainant’s bank account. The Supreme Court ruled that there was no sufficient evidence to summon the appellant as an accused, reaffirming the principles of Section 319 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC).

Background of the Case

The case pertains to an unauthorized withdrawal of ₹55,20,000 from the account of the complainant at the State Bank of India (SBI), Gonda Branch, Aligarh. The complaint alleged that the fraud was committed by bank and post office employees in connivance with each other.

Key events in the dispute:

June 20, 2014: An FIR was lodged at Police Station Gonda, District Aligarh, Uttar Pradesh, for fraudulent withdrawal from the complainant’s bank account.
2016: A charge sheet was filed against two accused bank employees, Jagpal Singh (Clerk) and Ajeet Kumar Sharma (SBI official).
2017: During the trial, the complainant claimed that the fraud was carried out in connivance with additional bank officials and post office employees.
May 6, 2017: The Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate rejected an application under Section 319 CrPC for summoning additional accused, including the appellant.
July 4, 2017: The Sessions Judge reversed the Magistrate’s decision and remanded the matter for reconsideration.
August 29, 2017: The Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Aligarh, ordered the summoning of the appellant along with other bank officials.
October 12, 2017: The Allahabad High Court dismissed the appellant’s plea under Section 482 CrPC, challenging the summoning order.
March 16, 2023: The Supreme Court quashed the summoning order, ruling that there was no material evidence linking the appellant to the fraud.

Arguments by the Appellant (Meenu Prakash Bhantu)

The appellant challenged the summoning order on the following grounds:

The only allegation against him was that he once provided the complainant with a printout of his account statement.
There was no evidence that he was involved in the fraudulent withdrawal.
The High Court had passed a non-speaking order, dismissing the plea without examining the facts.
Section 319 CrPC requires strong and cogent evidence before summoning additional accused.

Arguments by the Respondents (State of Uttar Pradesh)

The respondents defended the summoning order, stating that:

The fraud was conducted with the involvement of bank and post office employees.
The complainant had not requested a new cheque book, but one was issued and collected by an unauthorized person.
The appellant had provided an illegible or misprinted account statement, obstructing the complainant from detecting fraudulent transactions.
The appellant’s role, though indirect, contributed to the fraud.

Supreme Court’s Judgment

The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the appellant, quashing the summoning order and clarifying the standards for invoking Section 319 CrPC.

1. Section 319 CrPC Requires Strong and Cogent Evidence

The Court emphasized that additional accused can only be summoned if there is strong evidence suggesting their involvement in the crime:

“Power under Section 319 CrPC is a discretionary and extraordinary power. It is to be exercised sparingly and only in those cases where the circumstances of the case so warrant.”

2. Mere Allegations Without Evidence Do Not Warrant Summoning

The Court found that the appellant was merely a miscellaneous clerk who provided a printout of an account statement:

“No case is made out against the appellant at this stage for his summoning as an additional accused merely because he once supplied a copy of the statement of account.”

3. Role of the Accused Must Be Clearly Established

The Court held that the summoning of an accused under Section 319 CrPC should be based on a high standard of evidence:

“Only where strong and cogent evidence occurs against a person from the evidence laid before the court that such power should be exercised and not in a casual and cavalier manner.”

4. High Court’s Non-Speaking Order Set Aside

The Supreme Court criticized the Allahabad High Court for not providing reasons in its order:

“The High Court merely mentioned that no illegality or impropriety was found in the order, without noticing the facts of the case.”

Final Ruling

The Supreme Court:

Set aside the Allahabad High Court’s order.
Quashed the summoning order issued by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate.
Held that there was no sufficient evidence to summon the appellant.

Conclusion

This judgment reinforces the principle that additional accused should not be summoned without strong evidence under Section 319 CrPC. The ruling ensures that bank employees are not wrongfully implicated in fraud cases without proper judicial scrutiny.

Petitioner Name: Meenu Prakash Bhantu.
Respondent Name: State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr..
Judgment By: Justice Abhay S. Oka, Justice Rajesh Bindal.
Place Of Incident: Gonda, Aligarh, Uttar Pradesh.
Judgment Date: 16-03-2023.

Don’t miss out on the full details! Download the complete judgment in PDF format below and gain valuable insights instantly!

Download Judgment: meenu-prakash-bhantu-vs-state-of-uttar-prade-supreme-court-of-india-judgment-dated-16-03-2023.pdf

Directly Download Judgment: Directly download this Judgment

See all petitions in Fraud and Forgery
See all petitions in Bail and Anticipatory Bail
See all petitions in Cyber Crimes
See all petitions in Money Laundering Cases
See all petitions in Theft and Robbery Cases
See all petitions in Judgment by Abhay S. Oka
See all petitions in Judgment by Rajesh Bindal
See all petitions in allowed
See all petitions in Quashed
See all petitions in supreme court of India judgments March 2023
See all petitions in 2023 judgments

See all posts in Criminal Cases Category
See all allowed petitions in Criminal Cases Category
See all Dismissed petitions in Criminal Cases Category
See all partially allowed petitions in Criminal Cases Category