MOHIT KUMAR SHAH, J.:–The present matter arises out of a Complaint bearing Complaint Case No.1631 of 2011 filed by the Opposite Party No.2 before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Banka, inter alia, alleging therein that the Complainant (Opposite Party No.2) received a legal notice on 18.07.2011 from an Advocate of the Patna High Court, wherein it was stated that the complainant had got a tractor financed from Bhagalpur Branch of Magma Fincorp Limited, as such the Opposite Party No.2 should pay the monthly instalment, failing which appropriate legal action would be taken. It has been further alleged that the Opposite Party No.2 had replied to the said legal notice, but again he received another legal notice, whereafter the Opposite Party No.2 started collecting information with regard to the actual facts. During the course of enquiry by the Opposite Party No.2, he is said to have gone to the office of the said company and met the Branch Manager and the Field Officer of the said Company at Bhagalpur where the said persons had abused him. It has also been alleged that during the course of enquiry by the Opposite Party No.2, it transpired that the vehicle has been taken by the accused No.1, who lives in Jharkhand and all the accused persons had conspired to cause loss to the Opposite Party No.2.

2. On the basis of the said complaint dated 18.06.2012, the learned trial court directed the police to register FIR and conduct investigation, leading to registration of Banka Doraiya P.S. Case No. 112 of 2012 for the offence punishable under Sections 420, 407, 467, 468, 471, 120(B), 504 and 323/34 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. The learned Trial court by an order dated 28.02.2014, pursuant to the filing of the charge sheet by the police, has taken cognizance of the offences punishable under Sections 465, 467, 468, 471 and 120(B) of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioner herein and other accused persons. The aforesaid order dated 28.02.2014 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Banka in Doraiya P.S. Case No. 112 of 2012 is under challenge in the present petition.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner herein, who has been arrayed as accused No.4 in the complaint petition, has been described as executive of the company in the said complaint petition. It is further stated that the petitioner is working as a field staff and his job is to collect the monthly instalment from the customers of the company and he has got nothing to do with the disbursement of the loan. It has been further argued that a bare perusal of the complaint petition would show that no allegation has been levelled against the petitioner. It has been argued that the necessary ingredients for constituting the offence under Sections 420, 407, 467, 468, 471, 120(B), 504 and 323/34 of the Indian Penal Code are lacking. It has also been contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the entire dispute, at best, can be said to be a dispute of civil nature, hence, the criminal prosecution of the petitioner herein is malafide. The learned counsel has also referred to the judgments reported in (2008) 5 SCC 662 [S.K.Alagh.Vs. State of U.P]. and (2012)3 PLJR 817 [Sutapa Chakroborty & Ors. Vs. State of Bihar & Anr.], to contend that vicarious liability of the company cannot be fastened on the petitioner herein strictly in absence of the company having not been made an accused.

5. The learned counsel for the Opposite Party No. 2 has vehemently opposed the prayer made in the present petition and has submitted that the petitioner herein is also one of the conspirator in the entire occurrence and a well thought conspiracy has been hatched to defraud the complainant.

6. I have gone through the materials available on record and considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner as also the learned counsel for the opposite party No.2.

7. A bare perusal of the complaint petition would firstly show that there

Click Here to Read the rest of this document