//
you're reading...
legal issues

Quash – Private complaint – Ex-employees filed criminal complaint against the company on criminal charges – Magistrate took cognizance – petition for quash dismissed by High court – again filed the again dismissed – Apex court directed to pay the amounts of complainants and set aside the orders of magistrate and quashed the complaint = J.L. Soman & Ors. … Appellants Vs. State of Bihar & Anr. … Respondents = published in http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/imgst.aspx?filename=41100

 Quash – Private complaint – Ex-employees filed criminal complaint against the company on criminal charges – Magistrate took cognizance – petition for quash dismissed by High court – again filed the again dismissed – Apex court directed to pay the amounts of complainants and set aside the orders of magistrate and quashed the complaint = 

The complainants resigned  from  their  services  from  the  aforesaid

Company  on  03.02.2003,  04.02.2003   and   04.02.2003   respectively.   On

resignation, they claimed full and  final  settlement  and  claimed  salary,

bonus, leave encashment, gratuity etc. which were allegedly due to  them  by

the  Company.  The  appellants,  on  the  other  hand,  alleged   that   the

complainants had allowed misappropriation of stocks  and  payments  received

from customers, allowed accumulation of  outstanding  dues  to  the  Company

against goods sold by allowing indiscriminate sales and did not recover  the

huge outstanding amounts although it was promised. Due to this,  their  full

and final settlement of accounts was  kept  pending  by  the  Company.   The

complainants denied the allegations and filed  criminal  complaints  against

the appellants alleging cheating and forgery, among other offences.

 

5.    By orders dated 02.05.2006,  24.4.2006  and  25.4.2006,  the  Judicial

Magistrate First Class, Gaya, took cognizance of the  offences  against  the

appellants punishable under Sections 418, 504 and 120B of the  Indian  Penal

Code and issued summons and warrants to them. The appellants filed  criminal

misc. petitions before the High Court under  Section  482  of  the  Criminal

Procedure Code (“Cr.P.C.” in short)  seeking  for  quashing  of  the  entire

proceedings on the file of the  learned  Judicial  Magistrate,  First  Class

including taking of cognizance vide the aforesaid orders =

 

The

allegations were made  against  the  appellants  that  they  have  committed

offences punishable under the aforesaid provisions of the IPC and  as  their

claims made with the Company have not been settled, 

we  therefore,  directed

the appellants’ counsel to ascertain as to what exactly is  the  amount  due

to each one of the  contesting  respondents-complainants  in  these  appeals

from the company. 

In the course of submissions, learned senior  counsel  Mr.

Nagendra Rai on 06.12.2013, made a categorical submission that the  Company,

in which the  contesting  respondents  have  been  working,  is  willing  to

settle their claim by giving a sum of      [pic]1,00,000/- to  each  one  of

them. 

His submission is placed on record, and  we  have  perused  the  same,

having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and the  fact  that

the contesting respondent in each one  of  these  appeals  has  claimed  his

monetary benefits under various heads as mentioned in their  complaints.  It

would suffice for this Court to pass an order directing the Company and  the

appellants to see that the amount  of  [pic]1,20,000/-  in  relation  to  S.

Burman,            [pic]1,10,000/-   in   relation   to    Rajnikant,    and

[pic]1,00,000/- in relation to Sanjay  Kumar Sinha is paid towards full  and

final submission of all their claims,  by  issuing  demand  draft  in  their

favour within two weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of  this  order

failing which the appellants/Company will be liable to pay  an  interest  at

the rate of  9%  per  annum  on  the  above  said  sums  from  the  date  of

resignation by the complainants  till  the  date  of  payment.  

Further,  we

direct the  appellants/Company  not  to  write  any  letter  either  to  the

employer where the contesting respondents are  working  at  present  or  any

letter to whomsoever to  disturb  their  employment  with  their  respective

employer. 

We hereby set aside the orders  dated  02.05.2006,  24.4.2006  and

25.4.2006, passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Gaya,  whereby  he

took cognizance of the offences punishable under Sections 418, 504 and  120B

of the Indian Penal Code and issued summons and warrants. We also quash  the

proceedings arising out of the complaint case Nos. 315 of 2006, 319 of  2006

and 374 of 2006 before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Gaya, Bihar.

 

12.   In view of the  above  directions  given  to  the  appellants/Company,

these appeals are disposed of.       

NON-REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE
JURISDICTION

 

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 2114 2013
(Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 1233 of 2012)
J.L. Soman & Ors. … Appellants

Vs.

State of Bihar & Anr. … Respondents

WITH

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.2115 2013 (Arising out of SLP
(Crl.) No.1232 of 2012)

AND

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 2116 2013 (Arising out of SLP
(Crl.) No.1234 of 2012)

 

 

O R D E R

 

V.Gopala Gowda,J.

Leave granted.

2. These criminal appeals have been filed by the appellants as they are
aggrieved by the final common judgment and order dated 29.07.2011 passed by
the High Court of Judicature at Patna dismissing their petitions for the
reason that their earlier criminal misc. petitions were dismissed by a
common order dated 12.06.2007 after hearing the parties which fact is
admitted by the appellants but they again approached the High Court for
similar relief. Hence, the High Court was not inclined to interfere with
the same in the said criminal misc. petitions and dismissed the same.
Aggrieved by the said orders passed in Criminal Misc. Case Nos. 15687 of
2011, 16326 of 2011 and 15681 of 2011, these criminal appeals have been
filed by the appellants urging various facts and legal contentions and
prayed to set aside the impugned order and quash the proceedings initiated
against the appellants after taking cognizance of the offences alleged
against them by the respondents/complainants in these appeals.

3. The necessary facts of the case are stated hereunder:-

The appellants, namely, J.L. Soman, K.D.P. Murty and T.K. Mukherjee
were working as the Managing Director, General Manager and Distribution
Manager respectively, at Uni-Sankyo Ltd., a limited Company, during the
period of service of the complainants, namely, Sidharth Burman, S.K. Sinha
and Rajnikant who have been arrayed as respondent No.2 in the respective
criminal appeals.

4. The complainants resigned from their services from the aforesaid
Company on 03.02.2003, 04.02.2003 and 04.02.2003 respectively. On
resignation, they claimed full and final settlement and claimed salary,
bonus, leave encashment, gratuity etc. which were allegedly due to them by
the Company. The appellants, on the other hand, alleged that the
complainants had allowed misappropriation of stocks and payments received
from customers, allowed accumulation of outstanding dues to the Company
against goods sold by allowing indiscriminate sales and did not recover the
huge outstanding amounts although it was promised. Due to this, their full
and final settlement of accounts was kept pending by the Company. The
complainants denied the allegations and filed criminal complaints against
the appellants alleging cheating and forgery, among other offences.

5. By orders dated 02.05.2006, 24.4.2006 and 25.4.2006, the Judicial
Magistrate First Class, Gaya, took cognizance of the offences against the
appellants punishable under Sections 418, 504 and 120B of the Indian Penal
Code and issued summons and warrants to them. The appellants filed criminal
misc. petitions before the High Court under Section 482 of the Criminal
Procedure Code (“Cr.P.C.” in short) seeking for quashing of the entire
proceedings on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class
including taking of cognizance vide the aforesaid orders. The High Court
disposed of those petitions vide common order dated 12.06.2007 in Criminal
Misc. Nos. 23569 of 2007, 25544 of 2007 and 25546 of 2007 with a direction
to the appellants to appear in the court below within four weeks ordering
their prayer to be considered. The appellants contend that the High Court
vide order dated 12.06.2007 did not adjudicate on the correctness or
otherwise of the orders dated 02.05.2006, 24.4.2006 & 25.4.2006 and again
filed criminal miscellaneous petitions before the High Court for quashing
of the entire proceedings including aforementioned orders of cognizance.
The High Court dismissed the same vide order dated 29.07.2011 stating that
appellants had approached the High Court earlier seeking the same relief
and the same was disposed of. Aggrieved by the same, the present appeals
have been filed by the appellants urging certain grounds.

6. When these cases were listed for admission after notice, the learned
senior counsel for the appellants Mr. Nagendra Rai, agreed for the
observations made by this Court during the course of his submissions, to
verify from the records of the Company in which the second respondent in
each one of these criminal appeals were working, as to what exactly the
monetary benefits due to them by the Company are with reference to the
claim made by each one of them which are mentioned in detail in their
private complaints filed before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, First Class,
for certain offences alleged to have been committed by the appellants under
Sections 420,468,504, 120B, 406/34 of the IPC in complaint case No.
mentioned in the table below, the monetary dues from the Company is also
mentioned in the relevant column of the table :

|Sl.No. |Name |Complaint case |Amount claimed |
| | |No. | |
|1 |Sidharth Burman |315 of 2006 |[pic] 1,66,335/- |
|2 |S.K. Sinha |319 of 2006 |[pic] 1,18,178/- |
|3 |Rajnikant |374 of 2006 |[pic] 1,48,008/- |
7. A detailed statement of affidavit was directed to be filed by them
when these matters were listed for admission after issue of notice by this
Court. The affidavit of K.D.P Murty s/o late K.S.Murty, General Manager of
Uni-Sankyo Ltd., resident of B.N.R. Apartment, Hyderabad was filed stating
certain relevant facts in relation to these appeals questioning and
challenging the common order dated 29.07.2011 passed by the High Court of
Judicature at Patna filed under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. seeking to quash
the entire proceedings initiated against the appellants by the contesting
respondents before the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Gaya. In the
affidavit, the claims of each one of the contesting respondents have been
mentioned along with the reasons in relation to their resignation from
their services and also alleged the damage caused by each one of them to
the Company which are not required to be adverted to in this order in view
of the stand taken by the appellants in the affidavit filed by the
aforesaid person at para 4 which reads thus:

“4. In any view petitioner with utmost veneration state that the
petitioner is ready to abide by and accept any order/direction of
this Hon’ble Court to put an end to this vexatious litigation which
has travelled up to this court, wherein criminal law has been set
in motion.”

 
8. However, as could be seen from the averments made in the complaint by
each one of the contesting respondents-complainants herein against the
appellants, it is alleged that the appellants had committed cheating and
forgery against the contesting respondents-complainants with a motive to
grab the amount, the details of which are mentioned in the complaint.
Before the Judicial Magistrate First Class some of the respondents-
complainants were examined as witnesses before taking cognizance and
issuing summons, and after recording their statements, it is alleged by the
appellants that on incorrect appreciation of material available on record
and lack of application of mind, the learned Judicial Magistrate First
Class was pleased to take cognizance for offences punishable under Sections
418, 504 and 120B of the IPC against the appellants and issued summons
without serving the same on them and without following the procedure as
required under Sections 82 and 83 of the Cr.P.C., the non-bailable warrants
were issued to the appellants for their appearance before the learned
Judicial Magistrate First Class in the proceedings.

9. The correctness of the same was challenged by the appellants before
the High Court of Judicature at Patna by filing criminal misc. petition
Nos. 23569 of 2007, 25544 of 2007 and 25546 of 2007. The same came to be
disposed of by common order on 12.06.2007 with a direction to the
appellants to appear before the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class,
within four weeks whereby their petition under Section 205 for recalling
the warrant of arrest as also the attachment order may be considered.
Thereafter, the cognizance taken in the proceedings was challenged by the
appellants in the second round of misc. petitions, which came to be
dismissed vide common order dated 29.07.2011 for the reason that the
appellants had earlier approached the High Court as stated by them in para
2 of their petitions. Therefore, the learned single Judge was not inclined
to interfere with the above said petitions and the same were dismissed. The
said orders are challenged before this Court in these criminal appeals.

10. This Court after condoning the delay on 06.02.2012 issued notice in
all these cases and passed an interim order staying the operation of the
orders dated 02.05.2006, 24.04.2006 and 25.04.2006 in complaint case Nos.
315, 319 and 374 of 2006 respectively, passed by the Judicial Magistrate,
First Class, Gaya, Bihar.

11. We have perused the impugned order and also the complaints filed by
the contesting respondent-complainants in these criminal appeals. The
allegations were made against the appellants that they have committed
offences punishable under the aforesaid provisions of the IPC and as their
claims made with the Company have not been settled, we therefore, directed
the appellants’ counsel to ascertain as to what exactly is the amount due
to each one of the contesting respondents-complainants in these appeals
from the company. In the course of submissions, learned senior counsel Mr.
Nagendra Rai on 06.12.2013, made a categorical submission that the Company,
in which the contesting respondents have been working, is willing to
settle their claim by giving a sum of [pic]1,00,000/- to each one of
them. His submission is placed on record, and we have perused the same,
having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and the fact that
the contesting respondent in each one of these appeals has claimed his
monetary benefits under various heads as mentioned in their complaints. It
would suffice for this Court to pass an order directing the Company and the
appellants to see that the amount of [pic]1,20,000/- in relation to S.
Burman, [pic]1,10,000/- in relation to Rajnikant, and
[pic]1,00,000/- in relation to Sanjay Kumar Sinha is paid towards full and
final submission of all their claims, by issuing demand draft in their
favour within two weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of this order
failing which the appellants/Company will be liable to pay an interest at
the rate of 9% per annum on the above said sums from the date of
resignation by the complainants till the date of payment. Further, we
direct the appellants/Company not to write any letter either to the
employer where the contesting respondents are working at present or any
letter to whomsoever to disturb their employment with their respective
employer. We hereby set aside the orders dated 02.05.2006, 24.4.2006 and
25.4.2006, passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Gaya, whereby he
took cognizance of the offences punishable under Sections 418, 504 and 120B
of the Indian Penal Code and issued summons and warrants. We also quash the
proceedings arising out of the complaint case Nos. 315 of 2006, 319 of 2006
and 374 of 2006 before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Gaya, Bihar.

12. In view of the above directions given to the appellants/Company,
these appeals are disposed of.

 

 

 

 

………………………………………………………………………J.
[SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA]

 

 

 
………………………………………………………………………J.
[V. GOPALA GOWDA]

 

New Delhi,
December 17, 2013
———————–
13

 

 

 

 

Advertisements

About advocatemmmohan

ADVOCATE

Discussion

Comments are closed.

Blog Stats

  • 1,806,271 hits

ADVOCATE MMMOHAN

archieves

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 1,863 other followers

Follow advocatemmmohan on WordPress.com