Case Facts:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Miscellaneous No.45460 of 2010 ====================================================== 1. Marc Laboratories Ltd.. A company incorporated under Companies Act, 1956 having its Pincipal Head Office at Avanbai Mansion 3 Vidhan Sabha Marg Lucknow (previously known as mark Laboratories (Pvt) (Ltd.) through its director, Mr. Prem Kishore @ Prem Kishore Rastogi, son ofLate Raj Kishore, Director Marc Laboratories Ltd. Avanbai Mansion 3 Vidhan Sabha Marg, Lucknow (U.P.). 2. B.K. Srivastava son of late R.S. Srivastava, Executive Direcor Marc Labortories Ltd. Avanbai Mansion, 3 Vidhan Sabha Marg, Lucknow (U.P.). 3. M.J. Siddiqui, Son of M.S. Hussain Branch Manger, M/S Marc Labortories Ltd. Avanbai Mansion, 3 Vidhan Sabha Marg, Lucknow (U.P.). 4. Achhai Kumar Mishra, son of Jagjivan Pd. Mishra, regional Mangaer, M/S Marc Laboratories, resident of 128, M.I.G. Lohiya Nagar, Kankarbang, Patna-20. …………. Petitioners Versus 1.The State of Bihar. 2. Madan Mohan Sinha, son of late Jamuna Prasad, Resident of Nala Road,P.S.- Kadam Kuan, Patna, District- Patna. .... .... Opposite Parties/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. I.T.I. Suman. Mr. Rajesh Ranjan For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Sanjay Kumar Tiwary, No.1 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VIKASH JAIN ORAL ORDER Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.45460 of 2010 (10) dt.24-02-2012 2 / 3 2 10 24-02-2012 1. The present petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 24.07.2008 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Ist class, Patna in Complaint Case No. 1515 © of 2008 whereby the cognizance has been taken under [STATUTE] . 2. According to the prosecution case, the complainant was an employee of the petitioner- company and serving as Manager, Accounts till 26.9.2007, but the petitioners’ company did not deposit the requisite Provident Fund Contribution from 2005 to 2007 in his P.F. account rather he was maliciously transferred to Baddi, Himachal Pradesh. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners has relied on Annexure-9 series filed as part of the second supplementary affidavit to show that all the payments have been duly made well before filing of the complaint petition and as such, the continuation of the prosecution case will serve little purpose. 4. Learned counsel for the Opposite Party on the other hand states that in fact no payments have been made in the account of the Opposite Party No.2 which will be evident from a bare perusal of Annexure-9 series wherein the account number has been stated as H. P. - 2871, which is not the account number of the complainant at all. He invites attention to Annexure-3 forming part of the petitioner’s supplementary affidavit wherein the correct account number has been given as H.R.-7268/ 73 and from which document itself it transpires that the employees contribution has been shown as Nil. 5. He further places reliance on Annexure-7, which is also a document filed by the petitioners in the nature of the Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.45460 of 2010 (10) dt.24-02-2012 3 / 3 3 certificate of the E.P.F. Organization, once again based on the incorrect account number and which also speaks of ‘dues’ rather the ‘contribution’ being paid and that too in respect of ex- employees of Company whereas the complainant claims to have been an existing employee of the Company during the relevant period. 6. Heard learned counsels for the parties and perused the materials on record. I find on a perusal of the complaint that specific allegations have been made against the petitioners and finding a prima-facie case to have been made out, cognizance has been taken against the petitioners by the impugned order dated 27.8.2008 by the learned Magistrate. 7. Finding no illegality in the impugned order of cognizance I am not inclined to interfere in the matter at this stage, particularly when the foundational facts such as the complainant’s P.F. account number themselves are in doubt and dispute. 8. This petition, accordingly, stands dismissed. Sudha/- (Vikash Jain, J)

Applicable IPC Section: 420

Statute Text:
Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code. Cheating and there by dishonestly inducing delivery of property, or the making, alteration or destruction of a valuable security. Whoever cheats and thereby dishonestly induces the person deceived to deliver any property to any person, or to make, alter or destroy the whole or any part of a valuable security, or anything which is signed or sealed, and which is capable of being converted into a valuable security, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.