R.L. Gupta, J.
(1) The petitioners who are sister and brother respectively of the respondent have filed the present petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing the proceedings of 8 criminal cases detailed in Annexure 19 filed along with this petition against them at the behest of therespondent. Daring the course of arugments, it has been agreed that it may be.quite difficult to hear the arguments in respect of all the 8 criminal cases andtherefore, for the time being the arguments have been confined to the first complaint filed by the respondent against the petitioners under Sections 403/406 etc. read with Section 120B IPC.
(2) I have heard arguments advanced by learned Counsel for the parties in respect of this complaint. This complaint is from pages 25 to 32 of the file.The main grievance in this complaint is that respondent was having a joint locker No. 552 along with both the petitioners in the State Bank of India,Chandni Chowk, Delhi. Petitioner No. 3 who is the Manager of the aforesaid bank is accused No. 3 in the complaint. It is then alleged in this complaint that the respondent entertained a reasonable apprehension about foul play in the operation of the locker at the bands of the petitioners and thereforee vide letter dated 25.7.86 informed the bank not to allow the operation of the locker by petitioners 1 and 2. An entry in this respect was made in the records of thebank. It may also be mentioned that husband of the respondent was being harassed by the petitioners by making false and frivolous complaints against him as well as her. thereforee, the husband of the complainant also made a complaint about the un-known sources of income of her sister petitioner no. 1who was a Govt. servant. There was an enquiry by the Anti corruptiondepartment. In spite of a letter having been written by the respondent to petitioner No. 3, he permitted the surrender of the locker by petitioners 1 and 2in connivance with them thereby depriving the respondent from her valuables lying in that locker. The value of the contents of the locker is stated to be aboutRs. 20.000.00. Thus the petitioners were charged with criminal conspiracy of offences punishable under various Sections of the IPC.
(3) Learned Counsel for the petitioners submitted that the locker according to the rules of the bank could be operated by either of the joint holders.She has specifically drawn my attention to a copy of the bank's circular at page484 of the file. Clause (i) says that where the locker is hired by more than one person and operable by either of them, the key of such a locker can be surrendered either in person or by post by any one of the hirers. She has further submitted that since the contents of the locker bad been checked by the anticorruption Inspector on the complaint of the husband of the respondent the petitioners were well within their rights to surrender the locker because the anticorruption inspector told the bank that they bad no objection to the surrender of the locker. As against this learned Counsel for the respondent has drawn my attention to the agreement of hiring of the locker by the parties from pages469 to 471 of the file. My attention has been specifically drawn to clause (2)of the agreement. It says that ordinarily access to the locker during the joint lives of the hirers will be by the hirers or any one or more of them until the bank receives a notice to the contrary from either/any one of them in which event access shall be bad by the hirers or the survivors of them jointly. Basing his argument on the aforesaid clause, learned Counsel for the respondent argued that when respondent bad intimated petitions No. 3 i.e. the Manager of thebank not to allow the operation of the locker by the petitioners and an entry in this respect had been made in the records of the bank, it was not permissible to the Manager to allow the petitioners surrender of the locker and thereby facilitate the misappropriation of its contents of the value of about Rs. 20,000.00.I have given my careful consideration to the rival contentions at the bar. I am of the view that if the allegations as made in this complaint are proved then prima facie the petitioners are likely to be adjudged guilty of certain offences with which they have been charged. It is not a case where it can be said that there is no evidence against the petitioners or if the allegations as made in the complaint are admitted to be correct, no case is made out against the petitioners,Therefore, I am of the view that it is not desirable to quash proceedings in this complaint lodged by the respondent against the petitioners. I may further say that whatever observations have been made above are only tentative with a view to dispose of this petition and will not be binding upon the trial Court for reaching its own conclusion at the final stage. thereforee, the present petition qua this complaint is dismissed.
(4) The case may now be listed for arguments in respect of other complaints on 12.11.1991.