IMPORTANT POINT
The court ruled that the petitioner failed to establish a prima facie case for quashing the FIR, emphasizing the need for ongoing investigation into serious allegations of misappropriation.

JUDGMENT :

(Susmita Phukan Khaund, J.)

Heard Mr. S.P. Roy, learned counsel for the petitioner Shri Indarjeet Kumar Sahni, who has filed this application under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC for short) with prayer for quashing the FIR registered as Basistha Police Station Case No. 502/2022 under Sections 420/406 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC for short).

2. The allegation against the petitioner is that he used to serve as the Manager-cum-Accountant under the informant specially, for the commercial activities of Creative UPVC Windoors, Guwahati since October, 2020 to March, 2022. Prior to that, the petitioner used to serve as informant’s sales manager at Naharlagun. It is alleged that money taken by the petitioner to purchase raw materials and salary component, was misappropriated by the petitioner. The petitioner showed some expenditures which does not meet up to the money taken away by the petitioner. There is a vast gap within the money taken by the petitioner and the money spent by the petitioner, which implies that the petitioner has misappropriated the money meant for salary component and purchasing raw materials. It is further alleged that the informant called the petitioner on several occasions to return to Assam and clear the account but the petitioner did not return to Assam. The petitioner has been deliberately avoiding the informant.

3. On checking the stock and after verifying the raw materials and the inputs, an amount of Rs.50 Lacs was found to be missing and unaccounted for. It is alleged that the misappropriated amount was transferred to the petitioner’s various bank accounts by the informant as the informant believed that the petitioner would be utilizing the money for the growth and welfare of the informant’s company. Further, a list of amount transferred to the petitioner’s various bank accounts has been mentioned in the FIR. The following reflects the amount of money transferred to the petitioner by the informant :

“(i) Y.D. Decor Enterprise Ziro,

Central Bank, Ziro branch,

Ac. No.: 3785 0011 79

(ii) Y.D. Decor Enterprise, Indian Bank, Naharlagun,

Ac. No. 6614 9554 41

Transferred total Rs. 37,03,940.00

(iii) Creative UPVC Windoors, Ghy, Axis Bank, Guwahati Branch

Ac. No: 9200 2001 3747 609

Transferred total Rs. 13,22,882.00

(iv) Rajesh Sahani, SBI Nirjuli Branch, Ac. No: 3062 4006 591

Transferred total Rs. 8,10,620.00

Cumulative amount transferred : Rs. 97,21,618.00”

4. It is further alleged that the petitioner had shown an amount of Rs.52,24,683/- (Rupees Fifty Two Lacs Twenty Four Thousand Six Hundred and Eighty Three). At present, the petitioner is in Bihar and evading payment of amount misappropriated by him.

5. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the amount allegedly misappropriated by the petitioner as shown through Annexure-D series reflects that there is a difference of only Rs.16,00,000/- (Rupees Sixteen Lacs) and not Rs.50,00,000/- (Rupees Fifty Lacs), as alleged. It is submitted that this dispute is purely civil in nature. The informant can file a Money Suit and recover the unaccounted money as reflected in Annexure-D series. Annexure-D series is a detailed statement, which reflects the amount of money received by the petitioner and the amount the petitioner had utilized for the company. It is admitted by the petitioner that indeed he was working in the Company since October, 2020 and he had resigned in March, 2022. It is further submitted that the informant has not denied the statement of the petitioner. It is further submitted that no objection has been filed by the informant denying the statement of the petitioner marked as Annexure-D series and the petitioner has relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Naseem Bano (SMT) vs. State of U.P. and others reported in (1993) Supp (4) SCC 46 wherein it has been held that :

“11. Since we have already held that the appellant possessed the minimum qualifications prescribed for the post of L.T. grade teacher on the rel