IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Sudhir Agarwal, J.
Smt. Archana Gupta & Ors. – Appellants
Versus
The State Of U.P & Anr. – Respondents
U/S 482/378/407 No.2801 of 2012
Decided On : 18-2-2020
Criminal Procedure code, 1973 – Sections 200 and 202 Section 156(3) – Opposite party 2 Complainant Babu Lal Gaur filed an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., which has been treated as complaint and after recording statements of complainant and witnesses under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C., Magistrate has summoned applicants for trial under Sections 406, 420 IPC order – Held, Section 406 IPC deals with offence of criminal breach of trust which is defined in Section 405 IPC. The first requirement of Section 406 IPC is 'entrustment of property' by victim to Accused but there is no such entrustment. As per complaint, dues payable by Accused-Applicants according to averments made by Complainant satisfy liability as 'debt' but cannot be treated to be entrustment of property by Complainant to Accused persons and when there is no entrustment, question of dishonest misappropriation or conversion of such property to own use by such persons does not arise. Even Explanation 1 and 2 of Section 405 IPC are not attracted in the case in hand since there is no deduction of wages by employer for deposit in concern fund under Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 and Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948. Therefore, Section 406 is not at all attracted – Application allowed (Paras 26 and 27).
Facts of the Case
That the applicant completed his work in time and handed over his report to the opposite parties. The opposite parties were satisfied and happy with the work of applicant- That when the applicant raised demand for payment, it had been told by the opposite parties that they had not received money form Reliance Communications and they would make pay him after receiving it.
Finding of the Court
Section 406 IPC deals with offence of criminal breach of trust which is defined in Section 405 IPC. The first requirement of Section 406 IPC is 'entrustment of property' by victim to Accused but there is no such entrustment. As per complaint, dues payable by Accused-Applicants according to averments made by Complainant satisfy liability as 'debt' but cannot be treated to be entrustment of property by Complainant to Accused persons and when there is no entrustment, question of dishonest misappropriation or conversion of such property to own use by such persons does not arise. Even Explanation 1 and 2 of Section 405 IPC are not attracted in the case in hand since there is no deduction of wages by employer for deposit in concern fund under Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 and Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948. Therefore, Section 406 is not at all attracted.
Result: Application allowed
JUDGMENT :
1. Sri Arun Sinha, Advocate for the applicants is present. None appeared on behalf of opposite party 2 though name of Sri Vinay Kumar Singh, Advocate, is shown in cause list as counsel for opposite party. Hence I proceed to decide the application after hearing learned counsel for applicants and learned A.G.A.
2. Opposite party 2 Complainant Babu Lal Gaur filed an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., which has been treated as complaint and after recording statements of complainant and witnesses under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C., Magistrate has summoned applicants for trial under Sections 406, 420 IPC vide order dated 29.02.2012.
3. It is contended that perusal of complaint shows that if allegations made in the complaint are taken to be correct, yet no offence under Sections 406, 420 IPC is made out.
4. The complaint filed by complainant-opposite party 2 reads as under :
^^1- ;g fd izkFkhZ mijksDr irs dk LFkkbZ fuoklh gS] tks Jheku th ds {ks=kf/kdkj esa vkrk gSA
2- ;g fd mijksDr foi{khx.k esllZ fjyk;Ul dE;qfuds'kUl ds fy, Bsdsnkjh dk dke djrs gSA mijksDr foi{khx.kksa us izkFkhZ dks esllZ,0oh0vkbZ0 daLVªD'kUl dEiuh] ,&17] vkLFkk dqat] lkÅFk flVh] jk;cjsyh jksM] Fkkuk eksguykyxat] y[kuÅ ds fy, lc dkUVªSDV ds :i esa dke djus dk vkWQj fn;kA
3- ;g fd izkFkhZ us mijksDr foi{khx.kksa dk vkWQj Lohdkj dj fy;k rFkk fnukad 16@03@2008 ls 16@06@2008 rd ds fy, izkFkhZ dks Hkwfexr dsfcy fcNkus dk dke feykA izkFkhZ us mijksDr dke es yxHkx :0 5]50]000@&¼iakp yk[k ipkl gtkj :i;k½ yxk;kA
4- ;g fd izkFkhZ us viuk dke le; ij iwjk dj fn;k rFkk viuh fjiksVZ foi{khx.kksa dks lkSai nhA foi{khx.k izkFkhZ ds dk;Z ls larq"V o [kq'k FksA
5- ;g fd tc izkFkhZ us vius isesUV dh ekax dh] rks foi{khx.kksa }kjk crk;k x;k fd izkFkhZ fjyk;Ul dE;wfuds'kUl easa iSLkk ugha feyk gSA tc fey tk;sxk] rc vkidh isesUV dj nsaxsA
6- ;g fd bl rjg foi{khx.k izkFkhZ dks yxkrkj Vgykrs jgsA izkFkhZ }kjk :i;k ekaxus ij izkFkhZ ij uktk;t ncko cukus yxsA izkFkhZ dks ckn esa ;g Hkh Kkr gqvk fd foi{khx.kksa dks esllZ fjyk;Ul dE;wfuds'ku ls cdk;k isesUV izkIr gks pqdk gSA
7- ;g fd izkFkhZ }kjk ckj&ckj viuk :i;k ekaxus ij foi{khx.kksa us izkFkhZ dks psd ua0 224449] fnukafdr 10@12@08 :i;k 1]99]000@& ,p0Mh0,Q0lh0 cSad in ns; Fkk] izkFkhZ dks fn;kA izkFkhZ us tc mls vius ,dkmaV esa yxk;k] rks og psd ÞbulfQfl;sUV QaMß fy[kdj okil vk x;hA
8- ;g fd tc izkFkhZ og pSd ysdj foi{khx.kksa ds ikl x;k] rks foi{khx.kksa us dgk fd vki ,d nwljk psd ys yhft;sA izkFkhZ dks tc nwljk psd ua0 224450 fnukafdr 11@06@09 :0 4]50]000@& ,p0Mh0,Q0lh0 cSad ij ns; Fkk] fn;k x;kA tc izkFkhZ us og psd vius ,dkmaV esa yxk;k] rks og psd ,dkmaV can fy[kdj okil vk x;kA foi{khx.kksa us tkucw>dj] /kks[kk nsus dh fu;r ls] Ny diV iwoZd] ,dkmaV Dykst dh psd nh] tks ckmal gksdj okil vk x;hA
9- ;g fd izkFkhZ dks foi{khx.k ckj&ckj /kks[kk nsrs jgs rFkk izkFkhZ dk iSlk okil ugha fd;kA izkFkhZ dks blds ckn nks psd ua0 752922 fnukafdr 26@06@11 :0 4]50]000@& ,l0ch0vkbZ0] y[kuÅ ,oa psd ua0752923 fnukafdr 26@06@11 :0 13]500@& ,l0ch0vkbZ0 y[kuÅ ij dk fn;k x;kA
10- ;g fd mijksDr nksuksa pSd Hkh cSad esa yxkrs gh ÞbulfQfl;sUV QaMß fy[kdj okil vk x;hA
11- ;g fd izkFkhZ dks ekywe gqvk fd mijksDr foi{khx.kksa ds f[kykQ Fkkuk eksguykyxat esa Jh izohu ckxM+s us eq0v0la0 287@11 /kkjk 406@506 esa izFke lwpuk fjiksVZ ntZ djk j[kh gS] izkFkhZ tc viuh fjiksVZ fy[kkus x;k] rks Fkkuk&eksguykyxat }kjk izkFkhZ dh fjiksVZ ugha fy[kh x;hA
12- ;g fd Fkkuk&eksguykyxat }kjk dksbZ dk;Zokgh u fd;s tkus ij izkFkhZ }kjk mDr ?kVuk ds lEcU/k esa fnukad 26@07@2011 dks izkFkZuk i= iathd`r Mkd }kjk Jheku~ iqfyl v/kh{kd egksn;] y[kuÅ dks Hkh Hksth x;h gS] ftl ij Hkh vHkh rd dksbZ dk;Zokgh ugha dh x;h gSA izkFkZuk i= ,oa jftLVªh jlhn dh Nk;kizfr ekuuh; egksn; ds le{k lqyHk voyksdukFkZ gsrq layXud la[;k 1] layXu gSA
13- ;g fd izkFkhZ ds mDr iathd`r izkFkZUkk&i=ksa ij Hkh tc dksbZ ugha dh x;h] rc izkFkhZ }kjk foo'k gksdj U;k; ikus ds mn~ns'; ls mijksDr izkFkZUkk i= ekuuh; egksn; ds le{k lafLFkr dj jgk gSA
14- ;g fd vfHk;qDrx.k cgqr gh ncax ,oa igqap okys O;fDr gSA ;fn v
Mahadeo Prasad Vs. State of West Bengal
Jaswantrai Manilal Akhaney Vs. State of Bombay
G.V. Rao Vs. L.H.V. Prasad and others
Hridaya Ranjan Prasad Verma and others Vs. State of Bihar and another
S.W. Palanitkar and others Vs. State of Bihar and another
Hira Lal Hari lal Bhagwati Vs. CBI, New Delhi
Devender Kumar Singla Vs. Baldev Krishan Singh 2004 (2) JT 539 (SC)
Indian Oil Corporation Vs. NEPC India Ltd.
Rajesh Bajaj Vs. State NCT of Delhi
Vir Prakash Sharma Vs. Anil Kumar Agarwal and another
R.K. Vijayasarathy and others vs. Sudha Seetharam and others 2019(3) SCALE 563
SupremeToday
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.