SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1 M.Cr.C. No. 3968 of 2005

HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH

BENCH AT GWALIOR

SINGLE BENCH

PRESENT:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S. AHLUWALIA

Misc. Criminal Case No. 3968 OF 2005

Sanjay Baichen

-Vs-

M/s Navbharat Press (Bhopal) Pvt. Ltd.

________________________________________________

Shri Atul Gupta, counsel for the applicant.

None for the respondent even in the second round.

________________________________________________

Advocates:
O.P.Mathur,Raghuvir Singh,V.C.Mishra

(19/01/2017) This petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. hasbeen filed against the order dated 29.7.2005 passed by 11th Additional Sessions Judge, (Fast Tract Court), Gwalior bywhich the order dated 9.3.2005 passed by Judicial Magistrate First Class, Gwalior in Criminal Case No.38/2004 has been affirmed.

The necessary facts for the disposal of this application are that the complainant has filed a criminal complaint against the applicant for offences punishable under Sections 420, 465, 467, 468 of IPC. It is the case of the complainant that the head office of the complainant is situated at Indira Press Complex, Maharana Pratap Nagar Zone-I and its office is situated at Navbharat Bhawan, City Centre, Gwalior from where Navbharat Newspaper, Gwalior edition is published. Deepak Bhatnagar is posted as General Manager and he is competent and authorized to take legal action on behalf of the respondent/complainant. It is further alleged in the complaint that the newspaper agency of 2 M.Cr.C. No. 3968 of 2005 Navbharat Newspaper was given to the applicant on7.9.1995 for the sale of newspapers. It was the duty of the applicant to collect the advertisements which were to be published in the newspaper. The agency was terminated on1.2.2001 and at that time, total amount of Rs. 4,79,420/- was outstanding against the applicant towards the amount of sale of newspapers and also an amount of Rs. 3,72,245/- was outstanding towards the advertisement charges. Byissuing the public notice in the newspaper on 1.2.2001 his agency was terminated and the general public was informed that they should not enter into any transaction with the applicant. It is further stated that after the general noticewas published in the newspaper on 1.2.2001, the applicant with an intention to cheat, prepared forged receipts in the name of the complainant and by forging the signatures of the General Manager continued to collect the money from the persons who are interested to give their advertisement in the newspaper whereas he was not authorized to do so.

Complaints were made by several persons in the office of the complainant and accordingly another public notice wasissued on 5.5.2001 and the applicant was warned not to illegally recover the money in the name of the complainant but inspite of that the applicant continued to recover the money on the basis of forged receipts. The applicant was called in the office of the complainant to deposit the amount and he did come to the office of the complainant on2.4.2003 and although he admitted that he has recovered the money from the various persons but refused to deposit the same with the complainant. Thus, according to the complainant, as per the record available with the office of the complainant, a total amount of Rs. 8,51,665/- has been misappropriated by the applicant and it was alleged that he 3 M.Cr.C. No. 3968 of 2005 has also committed the offence of breach of trust and cheating. A complaint to the police was made but as no action was taken, therefore, the complaint was filed.

The complainant examined Deepak Bhatnagar andDashrath Jha under Sections 200 and 202 of Cr.P.C. and after considering the complaint as well as the documents filed along with the complaint and in the light of statements of the witnesses, the Trial Magistrate by order dated24.1.2004 took cognizance of the offence and directed for registration of the complaint against the applicant for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 465, 467, 468 ofIPC. Arrest warrants were issued. An application was filed by the applicant under Section245 (2) of Cr.P.C. By this application it was submitted by the applicant that there is no evidence on record so as to take cognizance under Sections 420, 465, 467, 468 of IPC. and there is nothing on record that the amount which was so collected by the applicant was not remitted back

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top