ASHOK K AGGARWAL Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) S. S. Kulshrestha, J. This application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (the Code) has been brought for quashing the order dated 1. 10. 2007 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gautam Budh Nagar in Criminal Case No. 8422 of 2007, Sfafe of U. P. v. Ashok K. Aggarwal, whereby taking cognizance of the offences under Sections 406/420/379/448ipc in Case Crime No. 89709/758/06 of 2006, registered at P. S. Sector 20, NOIDA, Gautam Budh Nagar on the charge-sheet submitted by the police under Section 173 (1) of the Code.

(2.) IT is said that the entire case has been fabricated against the applicant. Whatever the allegations have been attributed they all relate to the period (1. 1. 2006) when he was working in the capacity of the President and Djrector of the com plainant-company but the report of this incident was lodged after inordinate delay. The applicant after making substantial contribution to the growth of the company of the complainant left it on 28. 2. 2006 and joined another group. He was taken to high esteem in the Industrial Group and was also one of the directors of B. H. E. L. He had unnecessarily been draggedrinto these proceedings. The allegations with regard to non-vacating of the House No. B-115, Sector 26, NOIDA and also non-refund of sum of Rs. 1,22,500/- are all a matter of civil nature. Further such allega tions have been attributed with ulterior motive. Even when applicant was paid his provident fund gratuity, superannuation fund, leave encashment amount Rs. 50 lacs in the months of January and February, 2006, such outstanding dues were not shown against him. No amount of the company is due against the applicant. On the other hand applicant's claims which are in the tune of crores of rupees have not been settled by the complainant-company.

(3.) FIRST and foremost point raised in this application by the learned Counsel for the applicant is that the police had no power to proceed for making further investigation without the permission of the learned Magistrate. Before appropriat ing an answer to this moot question, a brief resume of the facts may be made. Police earlier submitted final report in Case Crime No. 89709/758/06 of 2006 for the offences under Sections 406/420/379/448, IPC against the applicant. The learned Judicial Magistrate, to whom the final report was forwarded under sub section (2) (l) of Section 173 of the Code after giving notice of the hearing to the informant, fixed the date for the consideration of the report vide his order dated 1. 10. 2007. After taking into consideration the evidence and materials in the case diary treated the protest petition as complaint case and recorded the statement of the witnesses under Sections 200 and 202 of the Code. After the conversion of the protest petition as complaint case an application in case crime No. 89709/ 758/06 was moved by the investigating officer for seeking permission to make further investigation and the learned-Magistrate vide the order dated 24. 5. 2007 denied permission as no one was there to press that application.