Rajeev Kumar Verma v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNACriminal Miscellaneous No.37903 of 2012 ====================================================== 1.Manoj Kumar Dudhoria, S/o Late B.L.Dudhoria, proprietor of M/s MAB Laboratories, having its office at F-104, 1[st] Floor Chetan Complex, Plot No.11, Central Market, Surajmal Vihar, Delhi. 2.Ranjeet Mishra, S/o Shri Suresh Mishra, residing at Road No.6D, Gardanibagh, Dsitrict-Patna. 3.Rajeev Kumar Verma, S/o Shri Anand Shankar Verma, residing at House No.3, Income Tax Colony, Bhoot Nath Road, P.S.-Agamkuan, District-Patna. .... .... Petitioners Versus 1.The State of Bihar 2.Shivendra Kumar Verma, S/o Late Yugal Kishore Verma, Partner, Jai Hanuman Sales Concerns, 6H/57, Bahadurpur Housing Colony, Bhoot Nath Road, P.S.-Agamkuan, Patna-20. .... .... Opposite Parties ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioners : Mr. Rajni Kant Jha, Advocate For the Opposite Party No.1: Mr. Rajesh Kumar, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH KUMAR ORAL ORDER 6 16-12-2014 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners. Nobody appears on behalf of opposite party no.2. Learned counsel for the State is present. The petitioners seek quashing of the order dated 05.06.2012 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Patna City in Agamkuan P.S. Case No.15 of 2012, whereby cognizance has been taken under Sections 406 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code. Petitioner no.1 is the proprietor of MAB Laboratories, a manufacturing unit for manufacture of liquid toilet cleaner. Petitioners no. 2 and 3 are the employees of petitioner no.1. The informant, under an agreement, was made the C&F agent for the product of petitioner no.1. The agreement lasted for a year only. The allegation in the First Information Report is that the market, which was created by the informant, was misused by petitioner no.1. The informant was given an assurance that he would continue to be an associate of petitioner no.1 in the channelising of the sale of the product in question. However, to his surprise and dismay, the informant alleges that petitioner no.1 opened his own channel for selling his product. It is also alleged by the informant that some money in the process of business transaction is due against the petitioner no.1 and his employees. As the allegations suggest, the petitioners are dilly dallying in making such payment. It is, therefore, alleged that the petitioners have made themselves liable for being prosecuted for criminal breach of trust and cheating as the intention to cheat was right from the beginning. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that after the expiry of the agreement, the petitioner, in the capacity of manufacturer of the product, had more expectations from the business and he decided to set up his own business after contacting persons in the market. It was for this purpose that he obtained VAT registration certificate and also opened an office for carrying on the business. It has further been submitted on behalf of the petitioners that despite the agreement with opposite party no.2 having been expired, as a gesture of goodwill, the petitioner no.1 continued to take work from the informant. This act of supporting the opposite party no.2 and providing him a reasonable prop in the interregnum period has been misused by him. The allegations made in the complaint petition are found to be absolutely vague. There is no detail of the amount of money, which is due against petitioner no.1. The falsity of the allegation is writ large and such contention gets further buttressed by the fact that the petitioners no.2 and 3, who are the employees of petitioner no.1, and against them there being no allegation, they too have been arraigned as accused persons. The allegations made in the complaint petition are found to be absolutely vague. There is no detail of the amount of money, which is due against petitioner no.1. The falsity of the allegation is writ large and such contention gets further buttressed by the fact that the petitioners no.2 and 3, who are the employees of petitioner no.1, and against them there being no allegation, they too have been arraigned as accused persons. Considering the vagueness of the allegation and the fact that offences of criminal breach of trust and cheating not having being made out by any stretch of imagination, the prosecution of the petitioners is highly unsustainable. The business relationship between the parties, which ultimately ended on a sour note, has led to the filing of the present case. The Pawan/- U T prosecution of the petitioners is for ulterior purposes. The order taking cognizance dated 05.06.2012 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Patna City in Agamkuan P.S. Case No.15 of 2012 is, therefore, set aside. The application is allowed. (Ashutosh Kumar, J)