IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE HIMANSHU JOSHI

th

ON THE 11 OF FEBRUARY, 2026 MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 10634 of 2022 HARISH MARMAT Versus JINESH JAIN AND OTHERS Appearance:

Shri Saurabh Kumar Tiwari, learned counsel with Shri Gaurav Tiwari - Advocate for the petitioner.

Shri Chandra Shekhar Upadhyay - PL for the respondent/State. Shri Sankalp Kochar, learned counsel for the respondent No.1.

ORDER This petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been preferred by the petitioner challenging the order dated 30.12.2021 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Begamganj, District Raisen, whereby the criminal revision filed by the petitioner has been dismissed and the order dated 12.07.2016 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Raisen in Complaint Case No. 414/2016 taking cognizance for the offence punishable under Section 409 of the Indian Penal Code has been affirmed.

2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was posted as Branch Manager in the State Bank of India at the relevant time. Respondent No.2/complainant filed a private complaint alleging that He stored his agricultural produce i.e. 440 bags Soyabean in a warehouse belonging to co- accused on 2303.2013 amounting to rupees 13,46,000/-. A warehouse receipt No. 266 was issued to him. On the basis of the said receipt, he obtained a loan of Rs. 7,80,000/- from the bank where the petitioner was Branch Manager. After repayment of the loan, he demanded return of the original warehouse receipt. The petitioner informed him that the same had been sent to National Bulk Handling Corporation Ltd who denied receipt of such document. The complainant first approached to police who did not take any action then sent a legal notice to accused persons and therafter file a private complaint.

3. On the basis of these allegations, the learned JMFC took cognizance under Section 409 IPC. The revision preferred by the petitioner was dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the essential ingredients of Section 409 IPC are absent. There was no entrustment of crops to the petitioner. There is no allegation of dishonest misappropriation.

The dispute, if any, is of civil nature or at best administrative negligence.

5. On the other side, counsel for the respondent No. 1 opposes the peittion submitting that the present petition under Section 482 CrPC is not maintainable as the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class has taken cognizance after due consideration of material on record and the revisional court has affirmed the same. The petitioner is seeking appreciation of evidence and adjudication of disputed facts at the stage of cognizance, which is impermissible in proceedings under Section 482 CrPC. He argued that at the stage of cognizance, the Court is only required to see whether a prima facie case is made out, not whether conviction is certain. He submitted that that the petitioner was Branch Manager of State Bank of India, thus, he squarely falls within the category of “banker” under Section 409 IPC. The receipt represents control and dominion over the goods and by retaining the original receipt, the petitioner exercised dominion over the complainant’s property.

6. He further argued that after repayment of loan, the complainant repeatedly demanded return of original receipt but the petitioner falsely stated that the document was sent to higher authorities. Misappropriation need not always be physical consumption of goods, wrongful retention of document causing loss to the owner also constitutes criminal breach of trust.

He prays for dismissal of petition.

7. Heard.

8. Section 409 of the Indian Penal Code reads as under:

“409. Criminal breach of trust by public servant, or by banker, merchant or agent.—Whoever, being in any manner entrusted with property, or with any dominion over property in his capacity of a public servant or in the way of his business as a ban