SUKHPAL SINGH Vs. SUB-INSPECTOR OF POLICE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In these petitions, accused No.1 and accused No.2 are the petitioners and they are praying for quashing of the entire proceedings in C.C.No.13/2016 on the file of the learned Civil Judge and JMFC at Sandur for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 408, 409, 420, 424, 506 read with Section 34 of IPC.

(2.) Petitioner in Crl.P.No.102040/2017 is accused No.1 and petitioner in Crl.P.No.102088/2017 is accused No.2 in C.C.No.13/2016. Respondent No.2 is the complainant. On 13.06.2015, a complaint was lodged on behalf of respondent No.3/Gannon Dunkerley and Company Limited, before Toranagallu police against two petitioners herein. The allegation in the complaint is to the effect that accused No.1 was working as Assistant General Manager (Project) and accused No.2 was working as Accounts Officer at JSW worksite at Torangallu, BaMari of M/s. Gannon Dunkerley and Company Limited. The sum and substance of the allegation is that, both accused No.1 and accused No.2 had misused the machineries and materials belonging to M/s. Gannon Dunkerley and Company Limited worth Rs.14,50,972/- by using them in other sites without the consent of the company. There are other allegations to the effect that the accused had drawn Rs.11,58,999/- as hire charges for two hydra machines for about six months without necessity as the company itself was in possession of four hydra machines in working condition. It is also alleged that the accused had cooked up accounts by making false statements and thereby misappropriated amounts belonging to the employer company without approval from the higher authorities. A specific allegation was made against accused No.1 that he had shown his own hydra machines as having been utilized for the work of the employer company. The further allegation in the complaint is that even against specific instructions from the employer company not to operate bank account of the company at Toranagallu, the accused had done so and had issued cheques to several parties worth Rs.1,14,77,437/- and out of the said amount, accused had retained Rs.10,00,000/- which were drawn under self-cheque bearing No.808032 dated 19.05.2015 from State Bank of My sore, Torangallu. There are several other allegations similar in nature in the complaint. Based on the said complaint, the Torangallu police registered a case in crime No.91/2015 against the petitioners herein. After investigation, police filed charge sheet on 06.11.2015 in C.C.No.13/2016 on the file of the learned Civil Judge and JMFC, Sandur for offences punishable under Sections 406, 408, 409, 420, 424, 506 read with Section 34 of IPC.

(3.) Learned counsel appearing for petitioners contended that the accusation as against petitioners are false and the complaint and charge sheet do not disclose any offences as against them. She contended that only wild allegations were made without that being supported by any documents or other credible evidence. She also submitted that the witnesses have all given stereo-typed statements and they are not entitled to be believed. She further drew the attention of this court to various documents produced by her in support of her contention and she submitted that if the above documents are taken into consideration, it would demonstrate that the entire case of the prosecution is groundless and therefore, the charge sheet is liable to be quashed.