SUSHMITA DAS @ PATNAIK Vs. SOUMYA RANJAN TRIPATHY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short, "Cr.P.C.") assailing the order of cognizance passed by the learned

(2.) The present opposite party filed a complaint petition on 04.01.2012 alleging that the present petitioner, the accused no. 1 in the complaint petition, was engaged as Public Relation Officer in the Company of the opposite party at the request of her mother, the accused no.2, since the complainant and the accused persons had good family relation. Thereafter, in the year 1999 being requested by accused no.2, the complainant agreed to purchase a piece of land on Puri-Konark road. But, the accused no.2 got the sale deed registered in the name of a fictitious person namely, Sasmita Tripathy. One building was also constructed on the said land at the expenses of the Company and one restaurant was opened there by engaging other co-accused no.3. The accused no.2 also withdrew Rs. 90,000.00 of the Company without the knowledge of the complainant. The accused persons allegedly misappropriated the entire income from the hotel and on being asked by the complainant, they assured to refund the amount which was not complied with. The complainant alleged that exploiting his good faith, the accused persons cheated him by misappropriating huge amount of the Company. The learned S.D.J.M., Bhubaneswar made an enquiry under Sec. 202, Crimial P.C. 1973 by examining the witnesses and by the impugned order dated 01.10.2012 finding a prima-facie case under Sections 420/506/34, I.P.C. against the accused persons, directed to Issue summons for their appearance to face their trial.

(3.) It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that there being absolutely no material to make out the alleged offences against the present petitioner, the learned trial court has issued process against the petitioner along with other co-accused persons In a mechanical manner. It has been submitted that all the allegations as made in the complaint petition, were against the accused no.2 namely, Kamal Das, the mother of the present petitioner and excepting the fact that the petitioner worked in the Company of the complainant for a period of about one year, there is absolutely no allegation against her so (sic) to make her liable for the alleged offences. It was also submitted that the petitioner had also left the job of the Company much prior to the alleged purchase of land and construction of building etc. It was further submitted that although the alleged occurrence took place prior to 2000, still the complaint petition was filed in the year 2012. It was further submitted that the petitioner had got married since 25.01.1998 and has been residing with her husband at Hyderabad and hence, she could not have any complicity with the allegations as made by the complainant. In course of hearing, it was also submitted that in the year 2011 the wife of the complainant had filed one Civil Proceeding before the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Bhubaneswar arraying the present petitioner and other co-accused as defendants with the pleadings that there was some relationship between her husband and the present petitioner who was also employee in the Company and taking advantage thereof the present petitioner along with other defendants misappropriated huge amounts of the Company for 'which her husband lost his mental balance. Placing the copy of the plaint in the said suit it was submitted that all the allegations as made like purchase of property, spending of money of the Company were all within the knowledge of the complainant and with his consent as per the pleadings in the said Civil Suit. But subsequently, the said suit was withdrawn and the complaint was filed by the present opposite party making allegations of cheating and misappropriation.