LAWS(J&K)-1972-9-1

RAMESH CHAND VERMA Vs. BHAGAT RAM

Decided On September 29, 1972
RAMESH CHAND VERMA Appellant
V/S
BHAGAT RAM Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an application under Section 561-A, Criminal Procedure Code for quashing the proceedings under Sections 420/ 406, R. P. C. pending before the Sub-Judge, Judicial Magistrate, Jammu, being taken in the complaint filed by Bhagat Ram, respondent, against the petitioner.

(2.) THE facts which have given rise to this petition are that the respondent filed a complaint under. Sections 420/406, R. P. C. against the petitioner with the allegations that the petitioner was working as an Accountant of K. C. Cinema at Faridabad and he was entrusted with the duty of receiving money on behalf of K. C. Cinema on trust and to dispose of the same in accordance with the instructions of the management of K. C. Cinema. As instructed by them, be had to maintain the accounts and deposit the money received, in the Bank of Baroda Faridabad into the account maintained by the partners of the said Cinema. ' The account had to be rendered at Jammu, the Head-office of the complainant. It was further contended that the accused with mala fide intention did not complete the ledger and from May 1970 to 7th April, 1971, received monies on trust for the Cinema and did not deposit into the Bank as directed. On preparation of the account the complainant came to know that an amount of Rs. 16104. 84 has been misappropriated by the accused. After the recording of the statements of the complainant and one of his witnesses, the trial Magistrate issued process against the petitioner under Section 420/ 406, R. P. C. It is at this stage that the petitioner has filed the present petition aggrieved of the order summoning the accused-petitioner.

(3.) THE main plea of the petitioner is that, according to the allegations given in the complaint the alleged offence of criminal breach of trust will be deemed to be committed at Faridabad, the courts at Jammu have no jurisdiction to try the complaint. Secondly it is contended that on a bare reading of the complaint it shows that no offence under Section 420, R. P. C. is made out.