VINEET AGRAWAL Vs. STATE O

JUDGEMENT

(1.) M. K. Mittal, J. Application has been filed for quashing the proceedings including the charge-sheet dated 4. 10. 1999 under sections 406 and 420 IPC in criminal case No-637 of 1999 (new No. 2233 of 2003) State v. Vineet pending in the Court of 1st A. C. J. M. , Varanasi.

(2.) BRIEF facts of the case are that opposite party No. 2 Sri Nath Prasad owner and proprietor of M/s. Orient Printers filed an application under section 156 (3) Cr. P. C. against the applicant and two others alleging that he is a peace loving person and earns his livelihood by doing business. His wife Smt. Premlata Devi is proprietor of M/s. Orient Printers situate in Baradeo Mohalla, P. S. Dashaswamedh, District Varanasi. Accused Vineet Agarwal is proprietor of M/s. Sanghi and Agarwal Capital Services with registered office in first floor Taksal Nadesar, Varanasi. Accused is also a Chartered Accountant and is proprietor of the firm Vineet Agarwal Chartered Accountant Company with office in Sampurnanand Nagar, Sigra Varanasi. Accused met Smt Premlata Devi and proposed for purchase of shares of Unit Trust of India and assured her and made her to believe and also gave a letter No. 139 dated 15. 3. 1993 in connection thereof. Smt. Premlata Devi gave cheques No. 720400 dated 19. 3. 1993 for Rs. 1. 40 lacs and cheque No. 059270 dated 19. 3. 1993 for Rs. 2. 60 lacs to the accused and he acknowledged the receipt by letter No. 742 dated 19. 3. 1993 and 138 dated 15. 3. 1993. Thereafter Smt Premlata gave another cheque dated 12. 7. 1993 for Rs. One lakh and its receipt was acknowledged by letter No. 538 dated 12. 7. 1993 by accused Vineet Agarwal. Accused assured Premlata Devi that he would purchase the shares on her behalf and would handover the same without any delay. But inspite of repeated demands the accused neither gave the shares nor returned the money and thus committed breach of trust and also cheated her and misappropriated the money for his own use and thereby has caused the loss to her. The application was earlier given to Senior Superintendent of Police, Varanasi but when no action was taken this application was filed and the learned Magistrate directed for registration and investigation of the case and after investigation charge sheet has been submitted against the applicant under sections 406 and 420 IPC.

(3.) THE applicant filed rejoinder affidavit and reiterated the pleas as taken by him. In rejoinder affidavit vague allegations have been made regarding the allegations as made in para -8 of the counter affidavit. It has been alleged that the loan was not paid back to the applicant but it was a transaction between two firm and between the Sri Nath Agarwal and Pankaj Agarwal.