Case Facts:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Miscellaneous No.25058 of 2007 =========================================================== 1. Supriya Chaudhary, son of late Kedar Nath Chaudhary. 2. Shree Kumar Mukherjee, son of late Gokul Chanda Mukherjee. 3. Sandeep Sen Gupta, son of late Dilip Kumar Sen Gupta. 4. Samir Banerjee, son of Sri Murari Mohan Banerjee. 5. Rantideb Bhattacharya, son of late Baidyanath Bhattacharya. All are presently working in the office at Andrew Yule & Company Ltd., Yule House, 8, Dr. Rajendra Prasad Sarani, Kolkata. .... .... Petitioners Versus 1. The State of Bihar. 2. Randhir Sharan Sinha, son of late Kapildeo Prasad Singh, resident of Pandoi Kothi, East Boring Canal Road, P.S.-Budha Colony, District-Patna, at present proprietor, M/s Singhson (India), Boring Road, Patna. .... .... Opposite Parties =========================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioners : Mr. Ashutosh Kumar, Adv. Mr. Chandra Mohan Jha, Adv. Mr. Birendra Kumar Singh, Adv. For the O. P. No. 2 : Mr. Akhileshwar Prasad Singh, Sr. Adv. Smt. Anita Kumari Singh, Adv. For the State : Mr. Matloob Rab, A.P.P. =========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHWANI KUMAR SINGH C.A.V. Judgment Heard Mr. Ashutosh Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Akhileshwar Prasad Singh, learned senior counsel for the opposite party no.2 and Mr. Matloob Rab, A.P.P. for the State. The present application has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure on behalf of the five petitioners for quashing the Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.25058 of 2007 dt.18-06-2012 2 / 9 2 order dated 25.5.2006 passed by Shri Bharat Tiwari, Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Patna in Complainat Case No. 2518(c) of 2005 by which finding a prima facie case to be made out under [STATUTE] , the petitioners have been summoned to face trial. The opposite party No. 2 filed a complaint in the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Patna vide Complaint Case No. 2518(C) of 2005 on 26.8.2005 alleging inter alia that pursuant to the advertisement published in local Hindi Daily (Dainik Jagran) inviting tender by Andrew Yule & Company Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Company’) for construction of compound wall and iron fencing at Katra, Patna City. The complainant filed tender which was accepted and accordingly work order to the tune of Rs. 17,28, 645/- (Seventeen Lacs Twenty eight thousand six hundred and forty five) was allotted to the complainant for completion of the aforesaid work as per specification of the Bihar State Electricity Board. It has further been alleged in the complaint that as per the terms of agreement, 30% or a sum of Rs. 5,00,000/- (Five Lacs) was to be given to the contractor in advance for purchasing raw-materials and, accordingly, the company paid a sum of Rs. 5,00,000/- (Five Lacs) to the complainant and, thereafter, the complainant commenced the work. It has been alleged that for ongoing construction work, payment was to be made only after certification of the bills by the Site Engineer of the Company. The bills were sent, thereafter, to the headquarters of the Company at Kolkata. It has been alleged that the work upto 75% has been completed by the complainant but instead of Rs. 14,33,904/-, the Company paid him only a sum of Rs. 5,00,000/- in advance and, thereafter, further a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- only had been paid to the complainant and in spite of repeated requests, the bills Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.25058 of 2007 dt.18-06-2012 3 / 9 3 submitted by the complainant have not been cleared by the Company and as such, the present complaint has been filed. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Patna after examining the complainant on oath on 5.1.2006 made over the case to another Judicial Magistrate under Section 192 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for inquiry and disposal. The transferee court after holding inquiry under Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, found a prima facie case to be made out under [STATUTE] , and, thus, summoned the petitioners by the impugned order dated 25.5.2006. It is submitted by Mr. Ashutosh Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners that the Company issued work order on a printed form on 2.2.2001 for construction of boundary wall as per approved drawing for a total estimated cost of Rs. 17,28,656.98 after deducting a sum of Rs. 90,981.95 from the total sum of Rs. 18,19,638.93 as per the terms and conditions of the Company. The work order in question has been brought on record and marked as Annexure-2 to the petition. He submits that from perusal of the terms and conditions as also from the averment made in the complaint, it would appear that an advance amount of Rs. 5,00,000/- (Five Lacs) lump-sum was paid immediately after release of work order. The bills sent by the complainant in terms of the work order on verification were found to be highly inflated. It is submitted that it is not correct that 75% of the work has been completed. As a matter of fact after thorough verification of the bills submitted by the complainant, the Site Engineer found that only 58% of the total work could be complete. The Company after getting final measurement of the boundary wall of Katra site sent a letter to the complainant on 6th July, 2005, Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.25058 of 2007 dt.18-06-2012 4 / 9 4 asking him to attend at the site along with all papers and documents for measurement, failing which, the Company would presume the report of the Site Engineer in respect to the measurement to be correct and would act accordingly. It is further submitted on behalf of the petitioners that the complainant by letter dated 9.7.2005 informed the Company that on account of marriage of the grand daughter of the complainant, he was unable to be present at site on 11.7.2005 and, therefore, requested the company

Applicable IPC Section: 406

Statute Text:
Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code. Criminal breach of trust. Whoever commits criminal breach of trust shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both.