SUGANCHAND KASTURCHAND RAKA Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard submissions advanced by learned for respective parties.

(2.) Learned advocate for the petitioner brought to my notice that, the complainant as well as the accused in the present case had moved an application dated 1.8.2011 in the pending Criminal Case No.456/2001 and complainant did not want to proceed further with the complaint case. However, on technical ground that offence punishable under section 406 of Indian Penal Code is noncompoundable, learned Trial Magistrate refused to dismiss the complaint.

(3.) Be that as it may ; facts which appear from record are that the complainant had claimed interest in the registered public Trust "Shri Jain Shvetambar Murtipujak Mandir" at Jalgaon, alleging that the accused was Extrustee and was the President till 15.10.2000 looking after the transactions of Trust including banking etc. It is also alleged that there was a scheme sanctioned by the Assistant Charity Commissioner and rules were framed pursuant to the scheme. It is alleged that the accused and other trustees had not called for the quotations or tenders and work of Architect was allotted to one M/s. Mahajan and associates. Thus, it was alleged that since Architect were paid by cheques, the accused had committed offence punishable under section 406 of Indian Penal Code. Two witnesses were cited in the complaint namely Krishna Sonu Bhamre and Rajendra Malhara. It appears that the complainant had led some evidence in support of the complaint in March, 2003, which was considered and by a reasoned order the learned Trial Magistrate found that it was a case of a bonafide transaction on behalf of the Trust between the accused and the Architects namely M/s Mahajan and Associates and could not amount to offence of criminal breach of trust. In the result, therefore, the complaint was dismissed on 31.3.2003.