JAYANT VITAMINS LTD. Vs. CHAITANYA KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is directed by M/s. Jayant Vitamins Ltd. canvassing the correctness of the Order dated 12.4.90 passed by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Indore Bench in Misc. Criminal Case No. 42 of 1990 allowing the petition filed by the first respondent, Chaitanya kumar. The appellant - company preferred a complaint dated 14.11.1988 with reference to an incident in October, 1986 against the first respondent (arrayed as A -2) and four others before ~he police under sections 420, 408 read with section 34 IPC on the allegations of criminal conspiracy, cheating, criminal breach of trust. On the basis of the complaint, a case was registered on 5.11.1988 in Crime No. 286 of 1988, a number of documents were seized. However, after 9 months it appears that the investigating officer arrived at a conclusion that as the allegations were found to be of internal dispute of the company and as there was no basic evidence, there was no hope of success and consequently he closed the investigation. On 23.9.1989, the Sub -Inspector of Ratlam Police Station was transferred. Thereafter, under the direction of the Superintendent of Police, further investigation in respect of the said offences was carried on which is admittedly not yet complete till date.

(2.) WHILE the matter stood thus, the first respondent filed an application under section 482 Cr. P.C. for quashing the investigation carried on in pursuance of the crime registered so far as he was concerned. The High Court after holding that the necessary ingredients to make out an offence under section 415 have not been made and after making reference to the decisions of this Court in State of West Bengal v. Swapan Kumar AIR 1982 SC 949 and R.P. Kapur v. State of Punjab AIR 1960 SC 866 allowed the application and concluded thus:

(3.) THE decision in Srivastava's case relied upon by Mr. Natarajan has no application to the facts of the present case. As we feel that any other observation, if made by this Court, may affect either of the parties at any stage, we do not propose to deal with this matter any further. However, we are of the view that the High Court was not justified in quashing the investigation for the reasons mentioned in its Order.