BAL MUKUND RAM Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned counsel for the petitioner and the opposite parties.

(2.) THE petitioner has filed this application for quashing the order dated 11.3.2003 by which cognizance has been taken under sections 384, 406, 420B and 342/34 of the Indian Penal Code in complaint case no. 2444 (C) 2002. The complaint case no. 1838 (C) 2000 was filed against M/s. Shiv Rani Housing and Finance Pvt. Ltd., Sri Lalan Sharma Managing Director, Mr. R.K. Shihora, G.M ž Mr. S.N. Sharma, A.G.M. and Mr. Rakesh, O.S.D. of said finance company on 9.11.2000 under sections 420, 406, 409 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code. In the complaint petition it is said that M/s. Shiv Rani Housing and Finance Pvt. Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as "Finance Company") has its head office at Diamond Plaza, Talangpur Road Sachin, Dist. Surat (Gujrat) and its branches at different places in the State of Bihar. One branch was opened at village Pachamahala, Mokama Ghat, District -Patna, and the complainant and Bal Mukund Ram (Petitioner) was appointed as senior Branch Manager by Sri S. N. Sharma. The job of the petitioner was to collect money from all the consumers and after collecting such money he would deposit the same in the name of different account holders and hand it over to Sri S.N. Sharma and some times to Sri Rakesh Sharma at Branch office, P.O. Maranchi, P.S. Hathidah, Patna. It is the case of the petitioner that on 10.4.1998, he submitted a detailed list of maturity amount of the deposit to Sri Sharma for making payment to the account holders. Sri Sharma asserted that he would be making payment with interest to the account holders by the end of December. At the end of December no payment was made to the account holders and the petitioner approached Lalan Sharma at his Surat office and impressed upon him the need for making payment. It is said that the petitioner approached all the persons, who were accused in the complaint petition as he was being pressurised by the account holders to make payment and finally on 19.6.1999 he gave a legal notice to the accused persons for making payment but the accused persons did not reply to the notice and then he has filed this case.

(3.) COGNIZANCE was taken in complaint case no. 1838(c) and when notice was issued, Sri Lalan Sharma appeared in court and praved for grant of. bail. Ball was granted on 6.11.2002 by the vacation court in which he undertook to appear with the relevant documents before the regular court. However, he subsequently defaulted and his bail was cancelled on 13.11.2002. Mr. Rakesh Sharma, who is also accused in complaint case no. 1838(C) of 2000, is still absconding and has not appeared in court after issuance of summons.