Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 84 (ALL)

MRINAL SAHA v. STATE OF U. P.

2019-01-09

NEERAJ TIWARI

body2019
JUDGMENT Neeraj Tiwari, J. Heard Sri R.K. Dubey, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri D.Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 and learned A.G.A. for the State. 2. The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.,C. has been filed for quashing the charge sheet dated 28.2.2006 submitted against the applicant in Case No. 64 of 2006 arising out of Case Crime No. 90 of 2005, under Sections 420, 418 I.P.C. Police Station Chaubepur, District Kanpur Nagar, pending in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kanpur Nagar as well as further proceedings of the aforesaid case. 3. It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant was appointed as Deputy Manager (Sales and Service) in the Gehring India Company at Kanpur on 2.1.1997 and since then he was working with his all sincerity and honesty. It is further submitted that the company of the applicant was having technical collaboration with Gehring G.M.B.H. Germany and certain dispute arisen between Gehring G.M.B.H. Germany and Gehring India Company and due to this dispute, technical collaboration and supply of goods from Germany was stopped to Gehring India Company. 4. It is further submitted that as per paragraph 4(b) of his appointment letter dated 2.1.1997, either party shall be at liberty to terminate their appointment by giving one month notice or pay in lieu thereof, after confirmation. Accordingly, he has submitted his resignation letter dated 5.6.2005 and clearly stated in his resignation letter that the amount of one month salary should be deducted from his gratuity amount. He also surrendered mobile phone of the company through courier. 5. It is submitted that due to resignation letter of the applicant, the present F.I.R. has been lodged by the opposite party no. 2, Sri S.K. Agrawal, the then Vice President of Gehring India Company against the applicant as well as Smt. Gehring G.M. V.H. Hiller, Sri J. Neralkar and Flakus Flectis Lin. Ultimately investigation was carried out and charge sheet was submitted only against the applicant under Sections 420, 418 I.P.C. on 28.2.2006. 6. It is further submitted that as per condition provided in paragraph 4(b) of the appointment letter dated 2.1.1997, the applicant has resigned from service. Ultimately investigation was carried out and charge sheet was submitted only against the applicant under Sections 420, 418 I.P.C. on 28.2.2006. 6. It is further submitted that as per condition provided in paragraph 4(b) of the appointment letter dated 2.1.1997, the applicant has resigned from service. The F.I.R. clearly shows that there is only one allegation of resignation with intention to cause loss to the Gehring India Company in connivance with three other persons, therefore, no case is made out against the applicant under Sections 418, 420, 406, 120-B I.P.C. Not only this, on one hand, the F.I.R. has been lodged against the applicant and on the other hand vide letter dated 17.1.2007, all the dues of the applicant was also cleared by the Company and he was paid Rs. 53,017 by cheque No. 411752 dated 16.1.2007. It is next submitted that the F.I.R. was lodged against four persons and the police authority has submitted charge sheet only against the applicant without application of mind. There is no allegation of any type of fraud committed by the applicant against the opposite party no. 2 or Gehring India Company, therefore, frivolous and baseless F.I.R. and charge sheet have been filed against the applicant. 7. Sri D. Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 has filed an affidavit dated 10.1.2008 and submitted that the opposite party no. 2 has resigned from Gehring India Company on 11.11.2005 and finally left the Company on 21.2.2006. It is further submitted that to the best knowledge of the opposite party no. 2, Gehring India Company has also closed its operation and it does not exist any more. No formal counter affidavit was filed by opposite party no. 2 on behalf of Gehring India Company. 8. Learned A.G.A. has opposed the case of the applicant, but could not dispute the aforesaid facts. 9. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. The appointment letter dated 2.1.1997 clearly provides that either party shall be at liberty to terminate their appointment by giving one month notice or pay in lieu thereof after confirmation. In resignation dated 5.6.2005 it has been clearly mentioned that a month salary may be deducted from the gratuity amount, therefore, condition of the resignation as mentioned in paragraph 4(b) of the appointment letter, has been complied with by the applicant. In resignation dated 5.6.2005 it has been clearly mentioned that a month salary may be deducted from the gratuity amount, therefore, condition of the resignation as mentioned in paragraph 4(b) of the appointment letter, has been complied with by the applicant. The Company has also accepted the resignation and cleared all the dues of the applicant vide letter dated 17.1.2007. 10. I have also perused the F.I.R. dated 18.6.2005 and charge sheet dated 28.2.2006 in which there is no allegation of any type of fraud except the allegation of resignation with intention to cause loss to the Gehring India Company in connivance with three other persons. The Investigating Officer has exonerated three accused persons and submitted charge sheet only against the applicant. I have also perused Sections 418 and 420 I.P.C. which are quoted below:- “418. Cheating with knowledge that wrongful loss may ensue to person whose interest offender is bound to protect.-Whoever cheats with the knowledge that he is likely thereby to cause wrongful loss to a person whose interest in the transaction to which the cheating relates, he was bound, either by law, or by a legal contract, to protect, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both. 420. Cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property.-Whoever cheats and thereby dishonestly induces the person deceived to deliver any property to any person, or to make, alter or destroy the whole or any part of a valuable security, or anything which is signed or sealed, and which is capable of being converted into a valuable security, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.” 11. Sections 418 and 420 I.P.C. do not contain any provision that in case of resignation, F.I.R. can be lodged and charge sheet can be submitted against the applicant. As mentioned earlier, there is no illegality in the submission of resignation letter by the applicant, which was also accepted by the Company Gehrig India. Therefore, I am of the firm view that no case is made out against the applicant under Sections 420, 418 I.P.C. 12. As mentioned earlier, there is no illegality in the submission of resignation letter by the applicant, which was also accepted by the Company Gehrig India. Therefore, I am of the firm view that no case is made out against the applicant under Sections 420, 418 I.P.C. 12. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the charge sheet dated 28.2.2006 submitted against the applicant in Case No. 64 of 2006 arising out of Case Crime No. 90 of 2005, under Sections 420, 418 I.P.C. Chaubepur, District Kanpur Nagar, is quashed. 13. The application is allowed. 14. No order as to costs.