SURESH KUMAR Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard. Roongta Hospital, Malviya Nagar, Jaipur is run by M/s R.M.C. Med. Ltd., which is a registered company under the Companies Act. The said Company lodged a criminal complaint through its Director Dr. Narendra Kumar Roongta against his real brother and one of the Directors of the company Shri Suresh Kumar Roongta in the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate No. 5, Jaipur City, Jaipur alleging therein that accused Suresh Kumar Roongta was authorised to maintain the accounts of the hospital and run the medical shop of the hospital. He cheated the company and misappropriated a sum of Rs. 5,09,946/- by forging the receipts (debit notes) showing payment to some of the creditors of the company, refund of balance amount deposited by the Indoor patient and the payment in the party account and making false entries in the account books of the company and thereby he committed offence punishable under Sections 406, 409, 418 and 420 IPC. The said complaint was forwarded to Police Station Malviya Nagar, Jaipur for investigation under Sec. 156(3) Cr.RC. and on receiving the same, the SHO, RS. Malviya Nagar registered the case and investigation commenced.

(2.) It is contended by learned counsel that the present criminal complaint is an out come of inter se ownership dispute of Roongta Hospital between the two brothers. It is in the said backdrop the present criminal complaint has been lodged by Dr. Narendra Roongta with an ulterior motive, in order to harass and humiliate the petitioner. The allegations levelled against the Accused - Petitioner are far from truth. The Accused - Petitioner has committed no criminal breach of trust or cheating. No case under Sec. 409 Penal Code is made out against the Accused - Petitioner as there was no entrustment of property or any dominion over it. At the most offence under Sec. 403 Penal Code is made out which is bailable. It has also contended that the petitioner is not a Government servant and the company being principal is not the accused in this case and, therefore, the petitioner cannot be held guilty as Agent of the company. It is further contended that allegations levelled in the complaint relate to preparing some false cash vouchers which were prepared by the Cashier/Accountant of Roongta Hospital. Entire alleged payment on the basis of cash voucher was made by the Cashier/Accountant but neither Cashier Beena Sharma nor Accountant Manish Mittal has been arrayed as an accused in the present case. False entries in the account books, if any, were made by the Cashier/Accountant. Ledger book and cash book which are in the possession of the company have not been produced before the Court for perusal. It is also submitted that in the Board Meeting dated 5.7.2004 of the complainant-company, Dr. Roongta had stated that the Accused - Petitioner was doing his duty in a forthright manner with complete honesty to the satisfaction of everyone. Even before the Company Law Board, affidavit of Dr. Roongta and Manish Mittal, Accountant were filed in favour of the Accused - Petitioner. Therefore, the application of the Accused - Petitioner for anticipatory bail moved under Sec. 438 Cr.PC. be allowed.

(3.) Learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the State and learned counsel for the complainant have opposed the bail application. It is contended by them that account books are not in the possession of the company but these are in the possession of the Accused - Petitioner. It is further contended that all the debit notes bear the signature of the Accused - Petitioner. All the creditors to whom payment was shown to have been made, have denied the payment. The details of the outdoor patients and details of persons to whom payment is shown to have been made in party account, have not been given in the debit notes. Hence, the application be rejected.