VIVEK KUMAR LALA Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner Vivek Kumar Lala has invoked the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quash -ment of the entire criminal proceeding in Govindpur (Barwadda) P.S. Case No. 179 of 2004 registered under Sections 409/34 of the Indian Penal Code against him and others pending in the Court of CJM, Dhanbad.

(2.) THE opposite party No. 2 alleged in the written report that the premises of M/s. Rupam Enterprises was visited by the informant including the Assistant Manager of BSFC on 10.7.2004 where it was found that the entire civil structures including the Kiln, Chimney, boundary wall etc. were removed from the site and some dressed bricks unearthed from the building structure were found lying at the site from which the informant gathered that the bricks were removed recently. All the hypothecated/ mortgaged assets of the said firm were under the possession of the partners, therefore, the informant had reason to believe that partners of the concern had dishonestly misappropriated the movable/immovable property mortgaged and hypothecated to the BSFC for their personal gains in violation of the terms and conditions of the agreement dated 12.10.1987, more so, in the event when the partners of the concern were not repaying the loan of the corporation, removal of assets in contravention of the terms of the agreement caused criminal breach of trust. The police registered a case for the offence under Sections 409/34 of the Indian Penal Code against all the five partners of the firm including the petitioner Vivek Kumar Lala. Yet, it was admitted that the petitioner was under guardianship of one Basant Kumar Lala and therefore, he was minor at the relevant time when the agreement between the parties was executed and also on the date of institution of the case.

(3.) MR . A.K. Sahani, the learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that though the BSFC was duty bound under the provision of Section 24 of the State Financial Corporation Act, 1951 to fulfill its commitment but unfortunately without performing its part as well as its obligation, the Corporation started demanding huge amount of interest beyond the terms of the agreement which resulted into controversy followed by several correspondence and legal notice from both sides. The accused persons approached the authority of BSFC for release of the balance amount for purchasing the machines etc. and pursuant to that a sum of Rs. 1,31.000/ - was released in the name of the firm on 25.9.1989 but the cheque which was issued by the BSFC returned unpaid on account of certain spelling mistake therein so the same was sent to BSFC for correction but it could not be and in that matter was deprived of an installment, though too small. It was only because of non -co -operation on the part of BSFC for that the unit of M/s. Rupam Enterprises could not be opened and the partners of the firm incurred huge unbearable and irreparable loss. The balance amount of sanctioned loan could not be given inspite of persistent persuasion by the partners. The breach of contract cannot be rendered as a criminal breach of trust. The written report disclosed the entrustment of plant and machinery but It did not mention that any beneficial interest in the plant and machinery was held by the BSFC.