Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 1022 (PAT)

Nand Kishore Singh v. State of Bihar

2018-07-11

RAJENDRA MENON

body2018
JUDGMENT : Rajendra Menon, J. Seeking quashing of an order dated 02.04.2014 passed by Sri P. Jha, learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Siwan in Complaint Case No. C-569 of 2013, Trial No. 6836 of 2014 taking cognizance of the complaint under Sections 417/418/34 of the Indian Penal Code, this application has been filed. 2. Applicant No. 1 has retired from service and Applicant No. 2 is still in service. The complainant Respondent No. 2 Dhananjay Kumar claims to have been appointed as an Accountant in the office where the petitioners were working and it is his contention that for the work done by him in spite of assurance and promises granted, salary for the work and honorarium has not been paid and, therefore, the complaint case has been filed. 3. A bare reading of the entire complaint goes to show that in the matter of work executed by the respondent complainant as an Accountant because honorarium has not been paid by making a vague allegation that the same amounts to breach of trust or breach of promise made, the complaint has been filed. In my considered view, a bare reading of the complaint does not make out any offence under Section 417 or 418 I.P.C. None of the ingredients necessary for constituting the offence is made out. Except for making bald, unspecific and vague allegation that the promises and undertaking given were not fulfilled, the petition does not in any manner whatsoever indicate as to how and in what manner the ingredients necessary for constituting the offence under Sections 417 and 418 I.P.C. is made out. It is a case where for the work done by the petitioner salary or honorarium has not been paid. It is a salary dispute arising out of execution of the contract in service and for the same a criminal complaint of the nature based on vague and unspecific allegation, in my considered view, is not maintainable. According to the respondent, there was no sanction for grant of work to the petitioners and, therefore, they have not acted in the matter. According to the respondent, there was no sanction for grant of work to the petitioners and, therefore, they have not acted in the matter. This is the defence of the petitioners but a bare reading of the complaint does not make out any criminal offence and, therefore, it is a fit case where the jurisdiction of this Court should be exercised to prevent misuse or miscarriage of justice and therefore, the application is allowed and the entire proceedings of Complaint Case No. C-569/2013, Tr. No. 6836 of 2014 is quashed.