The main legal point established in the judgment is that the High Court cannot consider the evidence produced by the accused in defense at the initial stage of criminal proceedings and cannot embark upon the appreciation of evidence while considering a petition for quashing criminal proceedings.

ORDER :

1. By this application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the applicant-original accused seeks to invoke the inherent powers of this court, for quashing of the FIR registered with Lunavada Police Station, District Mahisagar, for the offence punishable under Section 409 of the Indian Penal Code.

2. The facts in brief giving rise to file the present application are that, the accused being LIC Agent is charged with the offence of misappropriation of premium amount allegedly given to her by the various policy holders as referred in the complaint and failed to deposit the same before the concerned branch of the LIC, whereby, the applicant accused being an authorized agent of the LIC, committed an offence of criminal Breach of trust. According to case of the prosecution, the complainant being a Branch Manager of the Life Insurance Corporation of India (for short ‘LIC’) lodged an FIR, alleging inter-alia that, the applicant accused was appointed as Insurance Agent by the LIC. In the year 2018, she had collected amount of premium in cash as well as by cheque from the different policy holders. The applicant accused received cash Rs. 2,69,024.38 ps. and also received various cheques amounting Rs. 2,22,841/-. The total amount collected for and on behalf of the LIC was Rs. 4,41,865.38 ps. It is further alleged in the FIR that, she had been informed about the collection of the amount and directed to deposit the same with the LIC. She had deposited only Rs. 50,000/- and rest of the amount she did not deposit, despite the service of show cause notice and termination of the agency. In such circumstances, it is alleged in the FIR that the applicant has committed an offence of criminal breach of trust as during her tenure as LIC agent and while performing her duties as agent, collected and received premium amount and failed to deposit with the LIC and misappropriated the amount which is public money.

3. This Court has heard learned counsel Mr. A.A. Ansari for the applicant and Mrs. Krina Calla, learned APP for the respondent State.

4. Mr. A.A. Ansari, learned counsel for and on behalf of the applicant accused submitted that the applicant being a lady accused, has been falsely implicated in the alleged offence and considering the nature of offence and evidence collected during the course of investigation, the ingredients of Section 409 are not attracted. He would further submit that the applicant owing to her hard work procured more than 4000 policy holders and received commission for the premium collected from the policy holders and in the year 2018, she was promoted as TOP CLUB PICK and also member of million dollar round table and had achieved the criteria of COT Agent. It is in this context, he submitted that, in the month of July, 2018 to October, 2018, the payment of commission suddenly stopped by the LIC for which, she had asked the authority, however, she did not receive any reply. Thus, due to filing of the complaint for non-payment of commission, the complainant has grudged in his mind, as a result of which, present FIR came to be filed, which is nothing but misuse of the process of the court.

5. Mr. A.A. Ansari, learned advocate submitted that, prior to FIR, she was asked to deposit the amount but she could not make the remittance because at relevant time, her husband and mother-in-law fall ill and had spent the alleged amount towards their treatment. The applicant herein requested the authority to deduct the alleged amount from her commission and sought setting off the amount and also deposited Rs. 50,000/- on 25.03.2019 to the complainant. It is in this context, he submitted that there was no intention on her part, in the alleged act of misappropriation of the amount and therefore, the allegations made in the FIR even if accepted in their entirety, do not prima-facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused.

6. Mr. Ansari, learned counsel for the applicant submitted that, the applicant