Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 427 (PAT)

Bal Mukund Ram v. State Of Bihar

2007-02-26

SHEEMA ALI KHAN

body2007
Judgment 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the opposite parties. 2. The petitioner has filed this application for quashing the order dated 11.3.2003 by which cognizance has been taken under sections 384, 406, 420B and 342/34 of the Indian Penal Code in complaint case no. 2444 (C) 2002. 3. The complaint case no. 1838 (C) 2000 was filed against M/s. Shiv Rani Housing and Finance Pvt. Ltd., Sri Lalan Sharma Managing Director, Mr. R.K. Shihora, G.M Mr. S.N. Sharma, A.G.M. and Mr. Rakesh, O.S.D. of said finance company on 9.11.2000 under sections 420, 406, 409 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code. In the complaint petition it is said that M/s. Shiv Rani Housing and Finance Pvt. Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as "Finance Company") has its head office at Diamond Plaza, Talangpur Road Sachin, Dist. Surat (Gujrat) and its branches at different places in the State of Bihar. One branch was opened at village Pachamahala, Mokama Ghat, District-Patna, and the complainant and Bal Mukund Ram (Petitioner) was appointed as senior Branch Manager by Sri S.N. Sharma. The job of the petitioner was to collect money from all the consumers and after collecting such money he would deposit the same in the name of different account holders and hand it over to Sri S.N. Sharma and some times to Sri Rakesh Sharma at Branch office, P.O. Maranchi, P.S. Hathidah, Patna. It is the case of the petitioner that on 10.4.1998, he submitted a detailed list of maturity amount of the deposit to Sri Sharma for making payment to the account holders. Sri Sharma asserted that he would be making payment with interest to the account holders by the end of December. At the end of December no payment was made to the account holders and the petitioner approached Lalan Sharma at his Surat office and impressed upon him the need for making payment. It is said that the petitioner approached all the persons, who were accused in the complaint petition as he was being pressurised by the account holders to make payment and finally on 19.6.1999 he gave a legal notice to the accused persons for making payment but the accused persons did not reply to the notice and then he has filed this case. 4. Cognizance was taken in complaint case no. 4. Cognizance was taken in complaint case no. 1838(c) and when notice was issued, Sri Lalan Sharma appeared in court and praved for grant of. bail. Ball was granted on 6.11.2002 by the vacation court in which he undertook to appear with the relevant documents before the regular court. However, he subsequently defaulted and his bail was cancelled on 13.11.2002. Mr. Rakesh Sharma, who is also accused in complaint case no. 1838(C) of 2000, is still absconding and has not appeared in court after issuance of summons. 5. Sri Rakesh Kumar instituted a complaint case on 27.11.2002 just a fortnight after the cancellation of bail in which he has made the Company, Sri Lalan Sharma, Rana Sharma, son of Lalan Sharma and Bal Mukund Ram (petitioner) as accused. The case of Rakesh Kumar is that he was the Managing Director of the Finance Company at the branch at village Maranchi and this petitioner was Senior Branch Manager in the said company at the branch at village Pachmahala where the Director of the company is Sri Lalan Sharma. The job of the Branch Manager was to collect money from the consumers and this money was deposited in favour of the company as F.D., R.D. and D.D. and it was expected that after maturity the account holders would be paid money that they have deposited with interest. Rakesh Kumar alleges that he met the Managing Director and other authorities several times for release of the money. Against this petitioner, who is accused no. 4, it has been stated that he was very close to Lalan Sharma (Director) and Lalan Sharma assured him that the money would be paid to the investors. It was not done and Rakesh Kumar alleged that the amounts were handed over to this petitioner (accused no. 4) by Lalan Sharma to make payments to the investors but this petitioner did not make the said payment. It has been said that the payment was made to the accused no. 4 through different vouchers amounting to Rs. 2.11 lacs but he did not make payment. It is further alleged at paragraph-15 of the complaint petition that Rakesh Kumar on learning of the complaint case filed by this petitioner examined the records in the lower court and found that accused no. 2 i.e. Lalan Sharma admitted that he had made payment of Rs. 2.11 lacs but he did not make payment. It is further alleged at paragraph-15 of the complaint petition that Rakesh Kumar on learning of the complaint case filed by this petitioner examined the records in the lower court and found that accused no. 2 i.e. Lalan Sharma admitted that he had made payment of Rs. 2.11 lacs to this petitioner and he got the certified copy of the bail application filed on behalf of Lalan Sharma, but could not get the certified copy of the voucher filed in the bail petition. It has been alleged that this petitioner along with Lalan Sharma had confined the complainant in a room and forcibly taken signature on blank papers, and on the basis of these allegations the complaint was lodged. 6. It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the complaint petition, in which he has been made accused, has been filed to counter the complaint case filed earlier by him in which he had made Lalan Sharma and other persons of the company including the opposite party no. 2 Rakesh Kumar accused. It is also contended that after the bail of Lalan Sharma was cancelled, Lalan had instigated Rakesh Kumar to file this present complaint petition. The petitioner has submitted that the entire complaint petition is out of malice as Lalan Sharma is the main person with whom all the money was deposited and he had absconded from Bihar leaving this petitioner to face the investors. It is also submitted that, it is the contention of the petitioner that Rakesh Kumar being absconder in a criminal case could not have filed a complaint petition. The counsel for the petitioner submits that it is highly improbable that the petitioner after havingfiled the case against Lalan Sharma and Rakesh Kumar would have tried to illegally confine them and get their signatures on a blank paper, specially in view of the fact that Lalan Sharma had absconded after getting the bail on 6.11.2002. The petitioner has also brought on record that he was also an investor in the company and had deposited money with the company and his payment was also not made by the aforesaid Finance Company. 7. The petitioner has also brought on record that he was also an investor in the company and had deposited money with the company and his payment was also not made by the aforesaid Finance Company. 7. Although the submissions of the petitioner regarding the fact that the case appears to have been filed out of malice and to counter-act the allegation made by the petitioner against Lalan Sharma and complainant Rakesh Kumar and other officers of the company may have some merit, It would be very difficult to decide the fact whether any entrustment was made to the petitioner or not. For this purpose it would be required to examine records and several documents to ascertain these facts. It is quite clear that Lalan Sharma is the architect of dishonestly misappropriating from innocent persons a substantive amount of money. The petitioner seems to be one of the victims of Mr. Lalan Sharma. Moreover, at this stage, it would be difficult to ascertain any part of the allegation, which can only be done when there is sufficient material on record. 8. I, therefore, dismiss this application with the observation that the petitioner may produce all the relevant documents at the time of framing of charge to show that in fact no entrustment was made by Lalan Sharma to this petitioner.