AMOD KUMAR KATIYAR Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an application for quashing the order dated 20.11.2004 passed by the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Munger in connection with Muffasil (Bariarpur) P.S. Case No. 8 of 2001, G.R. No. 71 of 2001, whereby and whereunder the learned Magistrate took cognizance of the offences under Sections 406, 407 and 420 of the I.PC. and directed to issue summonses against the petitioner.

(2.) IN the complaint case the petitioner has not been made an accused. According to the Complaint Case No. 618 of 2001, accused Pawan Kumar Singh was given Rs. 3600/ - by the complainant and this amount was deposited in Haveli Kharagpur Branch of Imperial Forestly Corporation Limited vide Receipt No. 201562 dated 31.5.1997. When maturity period expired on 31.5.1998 accused Pawan Kumar was asked to give an amount of Rs. 4246/ - to the complainant but the accused has not returned the money and further the complainant has deposited Rs. 8000/ - in the name of his wife Smt. Soni Devi whose period also matured but Rs. 9440/ - was not paid and further the complainant deposited Rs. 8000/ - only on 9.5.1998 in the name of his wife on 20.1 1995. whose period has also matured but the amount was not returned although the period matured. The petitioner is not named in the F.I.R., nor there is any allegation, whatsoever may be against the petitioner. It is stated that this petitioner has been falsely implicated at the instance of the aforesaid Pawan Kumar Singh. The present petitioner was provisionally selected as Marketing Manager in the aforesaid Company and took training. The petitioner was transferred to Bihar as Development Inspector in the year 1994. It is also submitted that when a Branch in the Munger district was opened, the petitioner was directed by the Company to shift his office at Patna and in the year 1995, the petitioner was promoted to the post of Acting Chief Development Executive Officer in the said Company. The petitioner joined his new assignment on 27.12.1995 but in the year 1996 on account of his ill -health, he resigned from the above stated assignment in September, 1996. Again he joined his earlier Company as A.G.M. and he was posted at Howrah and thereafter he was transferred to Lucknow.

(3.) IT is submitted with reference to case diary that at the relevant time the petitioner was not working at Munger nor any amount was entrusted to him by the informant. The entire money was given by the informant to the co -accused Pawan Kumar Singh. It is submitted that the said Pawan Kumar Singh alone was responsible. It is also submitted that the name of the petitioner has been dragged in the instant case at the instance of the F.I.R. named accused, Pawan Kumar Singh. The petitioner was an employee of the said Company and the persons who are actually responsible for the said offence are the Board of Directors and not the petitioner. It is submitted with reference to case diary that not a single witness had stated about this petitioner. It is also indicated that the learned Magistrate took cognizance of offences and issued process against the petitioner considering paragraphs 4, 25, 28 and 30 of the case diary.