JUDGMENT

ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. — Leave granted.

2. Appellants call in question legality of the judgment rendered by a learned single Judge of the Patna High Court hold¬ing tha the issuance of summons to the appellant by learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Patna in Complaint Case No. 1613 (C) of 2002 filed by the respondent No.1 is proper.

3. Factual background in nutshell is as follows:

Respondent No.1 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘complainant’) filed a complaint on 9.8.2002 alleging that the appellants had committed offences punishable under Sections 406 and 409 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short ‘IPC’). The date of occur¬rence was indicated to be between 12.7.1995 to 8.5.2002. The basic allegations in the complaint were that an advertisement was issued by the appellant No.1 seeking applications for appointment to the post of Area Manager. The complainant, who was then work¬ing in another concern applied for the post, was called to the interview on 14.7.1995 and was asked to report at the Bombay office of the appellant No.1- company on 1.8.1995 for training. After completion of the training period the complainant was asked to report to the Patna depot. He was given appointment from 9.9.1995 by letter dated 1.9.1995 wherein it was indicated that he was appointed as Field Officer and not Area Manager. According to the respondent, on receipt of the appointment letter the com¬plainant asked the concerned officials i.e. the other accused persons as to how he was being appointed as Field Officer when he had appeared at the interview for the post of Area Manager. He was assured that the letter for the post of Area Manager will be issued in the first week of April, 1996. But no such letter came to be issued and he ws not appointed as Area Manager. Grievance was, therefore, made that the accused persons had initially de¬ceived him by appointing as Field Officer and not as Area Manag¬er, though he was assured that the appointment letter in that regard will be issued. Therefore, they were liable to face trial for offences punishable under Sections 406 and 409, IPC.

4. Statement of complainant was recorded on 13.2.2002. By order dated 8.10.2002 the learned Judicial Magistrate held that sufficient material existed to proceed under Section 418, IPC against the appellants and, therefore, summons were issued for their appearance. An application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short the ‘Code’) was filed before the High Court challenging legality of the order and summons. It was, inter alia, submitted that complaint was misconceived; the complainant had not come to Court with clear hands and had suppressed material facts. It was stated that the complainant had filed a Title Suit No.178/2002 before the learned Sub-Judge claim¬ing his transfer order was mala fide. The prayer for interim protection was rejected. Case No.11/99 has been filed before the Labour Court in which complainant claimed certain payments and compensation. There was no grievance made of any cheating neither in the civil suit nor in the matter pending before the Labour Court. The complaint was stale, and in any event, beyond the prescribed period of limitation as provided in Section 468 of the Code. It was pointed out that there was no proof of the complain¬ant having resigned from his previous employment. There was no material to show commission of any offence even if complaint petition is considered in its entirety. No foundation for pro¬ceedings under Section 418 of the Code was made out. For the first time in 2002 the alleged breaches were agitated. Stand of the complainant on the other hand was that finally his claim was rejected on 15.12.2001 and subsequently his services were termi¬nated on 29.4.2002. That being so, the plea of complainant having been filed beyond the period of limitation cannot be maintained. The petition was, as noted above, rejected by the High Court.

5. In support of the appeal, Mr. R. F. Nariman, learned Se