ANUJ PANDEY Vs. STATE OF U. P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the parties.

(2.) The preset writ petition has been filed for following prayers:

(3.) The facts of the case are that a first information report was lodged by one Ashok Kumar Shah as authorized representative of Dixon Technologies (India) Ltd. against accused persons namely Vineet Kumar Mishra, Prerna Dwivedi, Vijay Kumar Shukla, Anuj Pandey, Arun Mishra and other unknown persons under Ss. 420, 409, 506 and 120B IPC wherein it has been alleged by informant that the accused Vineet Kumar Mishra was the employee in the informant's company, who entered into the company as employee by way of Employee Service Agreement dtd. 5/2/2004 and subsequently was promoted as Chairman and C.E.O. (Lighting). He was engaged in dealing with works and transactions related with lighting including purchasing of raw material, supply/selection of vendors, production, sale and payment matters with customer and suppliers. Recently the fact came into the knowledge of company that the accused Vineet Kumar Mishra was doing the work against the interest of company. He had set up his personal business module with vendors and other persons. He had acquired so many properties by using misappropriation of funds of company and incorporated his own company namely R.R.D.M Inovation Pvt. Ltd. in which his relatives and family members who were holding the managing posts in company and were engaged in parallel work by dealing with customers and dealers of informant's company. He was found guilty in the internal/disciplinary enquiry also. By the activities of accused, the company fell in huge loss. It has been shown that the petitioner, who is employee of the complainant company, in collusion with the aforesaid Vineet Kumar Mishra helped him to do the acts against the interest of company. The active connivance of petitioner caused substantial loss to the complainant company.