RAJ KISHORE KATTARUKA Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed for quashing entire criminal prosecution including the order dated 20.12.2002 passed in Kotwali Sukhdeonagar P.S. Case No. 374/2002 corresponding to G.R. No. 1954/2002, whereby and whereunder the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi has taken cognizance against the petitioner under Sections 420, 406 and 504, IPC.

(2.) THE facts giving rise to the filing of this application are that informant Jagdish Prasad Maheshwari lodged an FIR in Sukhdeo Nagar P.S., Ranchi, stating, inter alia, therein that he has been working from June, 1995 as cashier in East Indian Transport Agency, Harit Bhawan, Harmu Road, Ranchi and petitioner Raj Kishore Kattaruka is Branch Manager of the aforesaid Transport Agency. He kept the account of transport with him and on many occasions he gave accounts on reminders. He kept income as well as accounts of delivery with him and used to receive payment from the parties and used to deposit the same according to his convenience. Whenever account was reminded then petitioner always asked him to keep it pending. He always furnished accounts every month and obtained the signature of the petitioner on vouchers and after 'his inspection accounts used to be sent to the head office of the transport. He used to charge damage but never credited the same to the accounts of the company and without charging money he used to deliver bilty. The petitioner made bunglings between June, 1995 to June, 2001 and he has, according to the assessment of the informant, committed misappropriation of the amount to the tune of Rs. 10 -15 lakhs. It is further case of the prosecution that in February 2000 the petitioner did not do balancing work and always asked the informant to kept it pending, whenever informant requested for the same. In this way amount came to Rs. 1,21,753/ - and whenever he requested for the same, he was threatened to do what he asked, if he has to do this work. Tara Chand Baidya used to come from head office for audit of the accounts and whenever he pointed the same to Tara Chand Baidya then he always assured him that account will be cleared and for the civil talk to Raj Kishore Kattaruka (petitioner). In June, 2001 Tara Chand Baidya came to Ranchi and asked him to prepare accounts upto 18.6.2001 and he gave accounts to him. Thereafter he went to the Chamber from inside then he and Raj Kishore Kattaruka (petitioner) abused him and assaulted him and snatched accounts book, cash report. Branch Book, daily earnings register, Keys of almirah and drawer and mentally and physically tortured him and obtained his signatures on some blank papers. He went to the office till April, 2002 and whenever he demanded salary and bonus then Raj Kishore Kattaruka (petitioner) asked him to leave the job. He lodged a complaint with the owner of the Transport Company then he also told him that he would ask the petitioner for the same but he has not been able to get salary due from July, 2001 till now. He suspects that Raj Kishore Kattaruka (petitioner), who is Manager of Transport Agency, by committing illegality and forgery, has withdrawn a heavy amount and with an illegal motive, kept the account with him and whenever he asked to deposit the amount in the account of the company, then he abused him and without paying his salary, removed him.

(3.) IT is apparent from perusal of Kotwali (Sukhdeo Nagar) P.S. Case No. 373/ 2002 that FIR was lodged on 18.7.2002 but from written complaint attached with the FIR, it appears that allegation was sent to the Sukhdeo Nagar P.S. on 31.5.2002, whereas from perusal of FIR of the instant case, it appears that cleverly the informant has not given any date in his written complaint before the Officer Incharge, Sukhdeo Nagar P.S. Further that this FIR bears Sukhdeo Nagar P.S. Case No. 374/2002, whereas petitioner has lodged FIR which bears Sukhdeo Nagar PS Case No. 373/ 2002 and, therefore, instant case has been filed after written complaint filed by the petitioner before the Officer Incharge, Sukhdeo Nagar Police Station. Further from perusal of contents of FIR, no case at all appears to have been made out because if any amount is due with the transport agency or with the petitioner, then he has to approach the civil Court by filing money suit and all allegations appear to have been false.