Penal Code, 1860–Secs. 406 & 420–Order of taking cognizance–Sustainability–Allegation that the respondent no. 2 allegedly encashed the amount of fixed deposit without intimating the complainant–Fixed deposit bore a clear noting that the same could be encashed by the joint signatures of B and other signatories and if B is no more, by any two from RD, KR & NR–Civil dispute was already pending in relation to the fixed deposit–If at all, the complainant had a valid claim to receive the fruits of fixed deposit, he would be at liberty to recover the maturity value thereof by taking recourse of execution proceedings–Fixed deposit was encashed way back in the year 1987–Complainant did not choose to initiate contempt proceedings against the respondents knowing that the fixed deposit has been encashed–Impugned order of taking cognizance is liable to be quashed.
