RAKESH RANJAN DUBEY Vs. SUNIL KURNAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS application under Sec. 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, has been preferred by the sole petitioner above -named with the prayer to quash the entire prosecution including the order of cognizance and issuance of process dated 20 -6 -92, passed by the learned S.D.J.M., Jehanabad, in Case No. 50/92, bearing Trial No. 880/780 of 1992/ 93, wherein cognizance has been taken under Sections 406, 420 and 120. -B, I.P.C. against the petitioner and three others. Of the four accused -persons mentioned in the petition of complaint (Annexure -2), the petitioner is accused No. 3, his wife is accused No. 4, and brother of the petitioner is accused No. 1, and his wife is accused No. 2. For reasons best known to them, accused No. 3 (petitioner herein) has alone moved this Court.

(2.) ACCORDING to the allegations in the petition of complaint, accused No. 1 (Rajiv Nayan Dubey), and accused No. 3 (the petitioner herein), had opened a branch of North Eastern Finance Corporation Limited at Jehanabad, the registered office of which is at Gauhati, and the petitioner herein is the Executive Director (Administration), of the Corporation. The complainant and fourteen persons mentioned as witnesses in the petition of complaint (Annexure -2), had opened their Recurring Deposit Accounts with the Jehanabad Branch of the Corporation and had deposited money in their respective accounts.

(3.) WHILE assailing the validity of the impugned order of cognizance, learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that no case is made out under Secs. 406 and 120 -B of the I.P.C. In his submission, in order to establish the charge of criminal breach of trust within the meaning of Secs. 405 and 406, I.P.C., there must be entrustment of property with the accused, or he may have dominion over property which he must have dishonestly misappropriated or converted to his own use, or dishonestly used or disposed of that property in violation of any direction of law prescribing the mode in which such trust is to be discharged, or any legal contract, which he has made touching the discharge of such trust, or wilfully suffers any other person so to do. I am unable to accede to the submission, inasmuch as it is manifest from a plain reading of the allegations in the petition of complaint that it is entirely a conspiracy and a nefarious family business of the petitioner. Accused Nos. 2 and 4, the wives of accused Nos. 1 and 3, are share -holders. The petitioner as well as accused No. 1 (Rajiv Nayan Dubey), are mentioned in the petition of complaint as top functionaries who have master -minded the whole conspiracy. The allegation of swindling the money out of the investors is surely against these two persons and the entrustment was to them and who, in any case, had the dominion over the money in question. The petition of complaint clearly alleges that the entire money was being deposited in the account of State Bank of India, Jehanabad, and accused Nos. 1 and 3 (the petitioner), only have had the authority to withdraw the money. This prima facie shows that the petitioner and dominion over the property.