J.P. SHUKLA Vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PRESENT petition is filed against the summoning order dated 31.01.2006 passed by Judicial Magistrate, Dehradun in criminal complaint case No. 1484 of 2005 (Gyan Sagar v. J.P. Shukla and others) whereby petitioners were summoned, on the private complaint filed by respondent No. 2, under Section 420 IPC.

(2.) BRIEF facts of the present case, inter alia, are that respondent No. 2 preferred a complaint under Section 200 Cr.P.C. in the court of Judicial Magistrate stating therein that complainant/respondent No. 2 is an Executive Chairman of a NGO working in the name and style 'Sie International' and this NGO is registered under Societies Registration Act and is engaged in the development work relating to public health and sanitation planning project; petitioners, herein, working under the name and style 'Knowledge Link Pvt. Limited'; petitioners could get one contract from Himachal Pradesh Government under the World Bank Project for the sanitation planning for backward and weaker sections of the society; petitioners approached the complainant in the month of April, 2004 and requested him to work as Technical Adviser; on 18.05.2004 one agreement/memorandum of understanding was executed between the petitioners and the complainant to the effect that complainant party would work as Technical Adviser for the development and sanitation work for the weaker and backward section of the people residing in Himachal Pradesh; Rs. 2,50,000/ - was agreed to be paid by the petitioners to the complainant for job of Technical Adviser; out of Rs. 2,50,000/ -, petitioner paid only Rs. 1,50,000/ - and failed to pay balance amount of Rs. 1,00,000/ -, therefore, they have committed criminal breach of trust, consequently, requested the Magistrate to summon the petitioners for the offences punishable under Section 406 IPC.

(3.) MR . Pawan Mishra, Advocate for respondent No. 2, raised preliminary objection that this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is not maintainable, in view of the fact that against the summoning order, criminal revision under Section 397 Cr.P.C., is maintainable before the Sessions Judge. In support of his contention, he has placed reliance on the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Om Kumar Dhankar v. State of Haryana reported in : 2012 (11) SCC 252. He further submits that offence punishable under Section 420 IPC is made out against the petitioners, in view of the fact that petitioners did not make balance payment with mala fide intention.