Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Summoning of Bank Officials in FIR Alleging Detention of Court Bailiff, Rules Protest Petition Not Mandatory
Case Name: Surinder Singh Vaid and Others v. Union Territory, Chandigarh and Another
Date of Judgment: January 5, 2015
Citation: CRM-M-34231 of 2009
Bench: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kuldip Singh
Held: The Punjab & Haryana High Court dismissed a petition filed by retired officials of the Punjab State Cooperative Bank seeking quashing of FIR No. 122 dated April 29, 1997, under Sections 342 and 353 IPC, and the subsequent summoning order. Justice Kuldip Singh held that the Magistrate was competent to take cognizance and issue summons even without a written protest petition when the cancellation report was opposed orally and the material on record disclosed a prima facie offence. The Court observed that the allegation that a court bailiff and decree holder were wrongfully confined inside the bank while executing warrants of possession justified issuance of process.
Summary: The case arose when Ram Lal, a bailiff in the District Courts, Chandigarh, accompanied by the decree holder Baldev Krishan, went to the Punjab State Cooperative Bank’s Sector 22-C branch to execute warrants of possession. According to the FIR, the bank employees, led by Surinder Singh Vaid (Manager) and others, resisted execution, raised slogans against the court order, locked the bailiff and decree holder inside the bank, and allegedly threatened violence through the armed guard stationed at the gate. The bailiff and decree holder were released only after repeated requests.
Following an application by the bank’s manager, a police inquiry was conducted in 2003, which recommended cancellation of the case on the ground that the bailiff misunderstood the situation, claiming the gate was closed for security reasons during cash handling. However, when the cancellation report was submitted, the complainant bailiff objected, leading the Magistrate to reject the report and issue summons under Sections 186, 353, 332, 342, and 357 IPC on August 13, 2009.
The petitioners contended that the summoning order was non-speaking, no protest petition was filed, and the complaint lacked substance. Justice Kuldip Singh rejected these arguments, holding that even an oral protest suffices if the Magistrate applies his mind to the police report and witness statements under Section 173 CrPC. The Court found that the bailiff, a neutral court officer, had no personal animosity, and the allegations of wrongful restraint and threat by bank officials required trial scrutiny. The defence that the gate was closed for routine security reasons could not be evaluated at the pre-trial stage.
Decision: The High Court upheld the Magistrate’s summoning order and dismissed the quashing petition, observing that the inquiry report could not override the bailiff’s complaint and that the evidence warranted judicial examination. The Court also directed the trial court to dispose of the long-pending case expeditiously.