VIJAY NAIDU Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ON the complaint of Yagya Dutt Sharma, the F.I.R. in question has been registered under Sections 406, 420 and 506 I.P.C. on 14.6.1999. The complainant has alleged that he deposited sum of Rs. 25,000/- and another sum of Rs. 50,000/- with Surbhi India Limited. As per the plaint the company was to give Indra Vikas Patra worth Rs. 50,000/- within 15 days but they have not done so. He has also alleged that with regard to the sum of Rs. 25,000/- deposited by him for one year he was issued a post-dated cheque payable on 25-3-1999. According to the complainant on 14.6.1999 when he went to the head office of the company, the Managing Director Usha Kiran Chaturvedi, Director Ashwani Kaushik and Director Prem Parkash Chatuvedi beat him and threw him out. He has alleged that the amount paid by him has been misappropriated by the above said three persons and Vijaya Naidu-petitioner herein.

(2.) THE petitioner's application for bail in anticipation of arrest has been dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ambala. Therefore, he has approached this Court under Section 438 Cr.P.C. for the same relief.

(3.) THE learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner is a computer engineer and had been looking after the computer section and office administration of the Company as Executive/Salaried employee Director. The Company, according to him is a family affair consisting of Usha Kiran Chaturvedi, Managing Director, Prem Parkash Chaturvedi and Ashwani Kaushik (the sons-in-law of Usha Kiran Chaturvedi) and Jyoti Kaushik (the daughter) being the other Directors. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that there was no entrustment to the petitioner and that he has also not incharge of the affairs and responsible to the company. According to him, the petitioner did not issue any fixed deposit receipt and the petitioner has also not refused to pay back any money. The learned counsel for the petitioner also contends that this is only a civil liability and no criminal action lies. The learned counsel for the petitioner also contends that now the company has been taken over by Nahar Singh and he has also given advertisement that the money of all depositors will be paid as early as possible. The learned counsel for the State on the other hand contends that the company is not working at all now and the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is necessary. But the learned counsel for petitioner contends that there is no allegation in the F.I.R. against the petitioner except the vague and general allegation that this amount has been misappropriated and cheated by him also. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner has also resigned from the Board of Directors on 15.6.1999 as is evident from annexure P-1 and there is also no vicarious liability on the part of any Director unless he is shown to be responsible to the company for the conduct of its business. In this connection, he relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Haryana v. Brij Mal Mittal and others, 1998(2) RCR(Crl.) 608 : JT 1998(3) SC 584 which supports his contention. There is no allegation in the F.I.R. that the petitioner is responsible to the company for the conduct of its business. The contention of the petitioner is that he was only incharge of the computer section and the administration. In these circumstances, without meaning to express any opinion on the merits of this case, I am of the view that the petitioner is entitled to be released on bail.