KALA IYER Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A. Arulmozhi, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has come forward with this petition for quashing the proceedings initiated against the petitioner for the alleged offence under Section 406 I.P.C. pending in C.C. No. 186 of 2003 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No. VII, Coimbatore.

(2.) THE learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner herein has been arrayed as A-4 and there are four accused in this case. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that as far as the petitioner is concerned, the petitioner is working as a clerk of the first accused company, viz., Patriot Automation private limited, calcutta. It is subbmitted by the learned counsel that the allegation, as per the complaint given by the defacto complainant, is that during the period between 8.3.2002 to 8.5.2002, A-1, patriot Authomation private limited represented by the Managing Director, A-2 being the Senior vice president A-3, being the Branch sales Manager, Tamil Nadu and A-4 being the manager of the Company were entrusted with the total sum of Rs. 30,00,000/- by the defacto complainant for the purpose of distributorship for two telephonic products with the first accused company and A-2 to A-4 committed the criminal breach of trust in respect of the said sum of Rs. 30,00,000/-

(3.) IT is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that neither in the complaint nor on the statement recorded from the witnesses under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. discloses any allegation to the effect that there was a entrustment on the part of the petitioner herein who has been arrayed as A-4 in this case. Therefore, it is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the allegation of the alleged offence of criminal breach of trust not at all arises in respect of the petitioner herein. IT is also pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner that a similarly placed accused, viz., A-3 has moved before this Court for a similar relief of quashing the proceedings initiated against A-3 and this Court allowed the petition for quashing filed by A-3 in Crl.O.P.No.27090 of 2003 by the order dated 25.8.2003. IT is also contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that this Court has held while quashing the above said petition that entire allegations contained in this case not at all constitute an offence under Section 406 I.P.C. and this Court also held that at the worst the allegations contained in the complaint and other materials available on record may not constitute the criminal breach of trust between the parties viz., the defacto complainant and the first accused company and criminal breach of trust neither on the part of the petitioner or on the part of the other accused.