RAVI TODI Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ application has been filed for quashing the entire criminal proceeding in connection with Complaint Case No. C11092/2014, including the order dated 28.6.2014 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, Jamshedpur in the above complaint case, whereby and whereunder, he took cognizance of the offences under Sections 406 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code. Petitioner further prayed for quashing the order dated 9.9.2014 by which bailable warrant of arrest issued against him. It appears that the complainant -respondent No. 2 is an advocate and he was engaged by the petitioner's company for defending a case (G.R. No. 784/2004) pending in the Giridih Court. It is further stated that complainant rendered his services from 20.8.2007 to 09.12.2009. Thereafter, he submitted a bill of Rs. 2,47,500/ -. It is submitted that out of the aforesaid bill amount, a sum of Rs. 82,500/ - has been paid to the complainant vide Cheque No. 046249 dated 7.2.2013. It is alleged that petitioner is not paying rest of the amount, even on repeated demand. Thus, the complainant alleged that petitioner misappropriated rest of the amount. Therefore, present complaint case filed alleging therein that petitioner has committed offence under Sections 406 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code.

(2.) IT further appears that the learned Judicial Magistrate, Jamshedpur recorded the statement of the complainant on SA and all other witnesses under Section 202 of the Cr.P.C. After considering the aforesaid statements, the learned Magistrate came to the conclusion that prima facie offence under Sections 406 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code made out against the petitioner. Accordingly, he issued summons against the petitioner vide order dated 28.6.2014. It further appears that when the petitioner did not appear before the court in compliance of aforesaid summon, learned Judicial Magistrate vide order dated 9.9.2014 issued bailable warrant of arrest against him. Against the aforesaid orders, present writ application filed.

(3.) ON the other hand, Sri N.K. Prasad, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 2 submitted that a given set of facts may make out a civil wrong as also a criminal offence. Therefore, both the proceedings can run simultaneously. He further submitted that admittedly, respondent No. 2 rendered his legal services in favour of the petitioner on the inducement that all the fees and expenses incurred by him will be paid. But the petitioner refused to pay above amount and misappropriated the same. Sri Prasad then submitted that there is deemed entrustment of the fee amount and, therefore, non -payment and misappropriation of the said amount is a breach of entrustment. Accordingly, he submitted that petitioner has committed offence under Sections 406 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code, thus, the learned court below rightly took cognizance of the offences against the petitioner.