RAM KRISHEN MODI Vs. AUTAR KRISHEN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an application under Section 561-A, Cr. P. C. , filed by Ram Krishen Modi for quashing the proceedings under Section 408 read with Section 109 R. P C. pending against the petitioner in the Court of Additional District Magistrate, Udhampur.

(2.) THE facts which gave rise to this application, briefly are these. Autar Krishen complainant is running the business of Devi Das Gopal Krishan at Jammu dealing in edible of oils and cotton Dharam Pal accused No I was entrusted with the edible of l tins to be sold at Udhampur at the shop of the firm. The complainant alleged that Dharam Pal accused No. 1 and Ram Krishen accused No. 2 entered into a criminal conspiracy to embezzle the sale proceeds of the goods of the complainant which were entrusted to accused No I in the course of his employment as a servant of the firm. It was further alleged, that the accused made false entries in the account books of the firm and appropriated to his own use the sale-proceeds of the goods sold by him on behalf of the firm. The complainant examined himself and another witness and the Additional District Magistrate, Udhampur, issued process against the accused persons. Ram Krishen has filed the present application.

(3.) IT is argued on behalf of the petitioner that the allegations in the complaint disclose no offence against him and therefore, the proceedings should be quashed. I have gone through the complaint and also the statements made by the complainant and another witness produced by him In the complaint it is stated that accused No. 1 was carrying on business on behalf of the complainant firm at Udhampur and in violation of the agreement of service engaged himself with accused No. 2 for carrying on some other business without the knowledge and permission of the firm and accused No. 2 gave bogus cheques to accused No. 1. It appears that accused No, 1 was employed by the complainant and it is alleged that he had been utilizing the proceeds of the sale of goods at the shop of the complainant in some other business which he was carrying on with the present petitioner. There is nothing alleged in the complaint or in the statements of the complainant and his witness which discloses the offence of conspiracy against the petitioner. The mere use of the word 'conspiracy ' would not be sufficient to start proceedings against the petitioner. There must have been some allegation made in the complaint or in their statements by the complainant and his witness to show what actually was done by the petitioner which constituted an offence. ' The allegations made in the complaint do not constitute the offence alleged. The allegation is that the employee accused No. 1 had been carrying on partnership business with the petitioner and utilizing monies of the firm. There is nothing to show that the petitioner had in any way helped accused No. 1 in taking out monies from the shop of the complainant. In R. P. Kapur v. State of Punjab the following tests have been laid down where the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court to quash proceedings can and should be exercised and these are: