Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 825 (JHR)

C. B. N. Reddy v. Chandan Sen Chaudhary

2005-11-28

AMARESHWAR SAHAY

body2005
By Court.- In the instant application the petitioner has challenged the order dated 13.2.1998 taking cognizance of the offences under Sections 417, 418, 420, 406/120B of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioner by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dhanbad and also for quashing of the entire criminal prosecution against him. 2. The facts in short are that a complaint petition being C.P. Case No. 3281 1997 was filed by the complainan1-O.P. No. 1 Chandan Sen Choudhary against the petitioner and one another namely, CK Rajkumar, who was said to be the Managing Director of M/s Velvette International Pharma Products Limited, Madras. In the complaint petition, the complainant alleged that he being a Graduate and Diploma Holder in Management had gone to Madras in the mid of 1996 to seek employment. It is alleged that the accused no. 2, i.e. the petitioner herein, was running his placement centre for the job seekers at Madras and on 14.6.1996 the petitioner is said to have sent the complainant to the company of accused no. 1, namely, Velvette International Pharma Products Limited for the job. It is alleged that subsequently, the accused no. 1 issued an offer letter to the complainant-O.P. No. 1 herein for a job and the complainant accepted the said offer and, thereafter, joined the company's employment at Calcutta. It is further alleged in the complaint petition that the complainant worked with the said company for a few months and he also received salary for the said period. The main grievance of the petitioner, as it appears from the complaint petition, is that though he was offered an annual package of Rs. 1,44,000/- (12,000/- P.M.) but with an intention to cheat the complainant dishonestly the employer, i.e. M/s Velvette International Pharma Products Limited did not pay the salary to the complainant from June 1996 causing a total damage and loss of approximately RS.1,1 0,0001-. 3. Therefore, from perusal of the complaint petition it appears that the allegation of the complainant is that though he worked with the company namely, Velvette International Pharma Products Limited but he was not paid his salary from June 1996 onwards. 4. 3. Therefore, from perusal of the complaint petition it appears that the allegation of the complainant is that though he worked with the company namely, Velvette International Pharma Products Limited but he was not paid his salary from June 1996 onwards. 4. From the averments made in the complaint petition it is apparent that the only allegation made against the petitioner is that he being an officer of the placement centre sent the complainant to M/s Velvette International Pharma Products Limited for a job and the said company employed the complainant on certain terms and conditions which according to the complainant was subsequently not fulfilled by the said company and, therefore, the petitioner also connived with the other accused, i.e. the Managing Director of M/s Velvette International Pharma Products Limited in committing the offence alleged. 5. Mr. V.K. Prasad, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the order taking cognizance as well as the entire criminal prosecution against the petitioner is absolutely bad in law as no case of any criminal nature is made out, even if the entire allegations made in the complaint petition are accepted to be true. It is further submitted that there was no allegation against the petitioner that he had any dishonest intention in sending the complainant to the said company, i.e. M/s Velvette International Pharma Products Limited for his employment nor there is any allegation that by sending the complainant for a job to M/s Velvette International Pharma Products Limited he obtained any wrongful gain or that the complainant suffered any loss because of he petitioner. 6. On the other hand Mr. Piprewal, learned counsel appearing for the complainant-O.P. No.1 has submitted that the petitioner was the Marketing Advisor of M/s Velvette International Pharma Products limited and, therefore, he being an officer of the said company, which employed the complainant, connived with the company in deceiving and cheating the complainant. 7. The submissions of Mr. Piprewal, learned counsel appearing for the complainant-O.P. No.1 is devoid of any merit. From bare perusal of the complaint petition and the statement made by the complainant on solemn affirmation, I find that there is absolutely no allegation at all against the petitioner so as to make out an offence of criminal nature what to speak of cheating and misappropriation etc. From bare perusal of the complaint petition and the statement made by the complainant on solemn affirmation, I find that there is absolutely no allegation at all against the petitioner so as to make out an offence of criminal nature what to speak of cheating and misappropriation etc. From the allegations made in the complaint petition even if it is accepted in its entirety no ingredients of any of the offences for which cognizance have been taken is made out. If the complainant was not paid his dues salary by the employer, he had other remedies available under the law but at no stretch of imagination the same can be said to be an offence under the Indian Penal Code. In any view of the matter the allegation of non-payment of salary is not against the petitioner. 8. Thereafter, in my view, the order taking cognizance as well as the entire criminal prosecution is grossly an abuse of the process of the court and, therefore, it must be quashed. Accordingly, this application is allowed. The order taking cognizance dated 13.2.1998 and the entire criminal prosecution being C.P Case No. 328/1997 is hereby quashed.