Case Facts:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Miscellaneous No.35757 of 2011 ====================================================== 1. Housing & Urban Development Corporation Limited through P. Venkateshwar Reddy, the Regional Chief, Regional Office, Block-B, 2nd Floor Maurya Lok Complex, District-Patna. 2. Arun Kumar son of Late Kapildeo Singh, presently posted as Regional Chief, Housing & Urban Development Corporation Limited, Kolkata Regional Office, New CMC Building, 3rd Floor, 15N Lindsay Street, Kolkata-700087. 3. Deepak Kumar Jha son of Shri Bhagirath Jha, presently posted as Asstt. General Manager (Projects), Housing & Urban Development Corporation Limited, Regional Office, Maurya Complex, Patna. 4. Jitendra Kumar son of Basudeo Prasad, presently posted as Senior Manager (Finance), Housing & Urban Development Corporation Limited, Regional Office, Maurya Complex, Patna. 5. Manoj Kumar Pandey son of Shri Raghunath Prasad Pandey, presently posted as Sr. Manager (Law) at Lucknow Regional Office,B-1, North East Block, 2nd floor, PICUP Building, Vibhuti Khand Gomti Nagar, Lucknow-226010, Uttar Pradesh. .... .... Petitioner/s Versus The State Of Bihar & Anr. .... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Sanjay Kr. Ghosarvey, Manoj Kr. Pandey, Advs. For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Rana Pratap Singh, Sr. Advocate, Mr. Radha Mohan Singh, Adv. For the State Mr. Ashok Kr. Singh, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVAJI PANDEY ORAL ORDER 10 14-12-2012 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned counsel for the O.P. No. 2 and learned counsel for the State. In this case, petitioners are challenging the order dated 04.02.2010 arising from Complaint Case 1473(C)/2009 whereby and whereunder the court of Judicial Magistrate 1st class, Patna took cognizance for offence under [STATUTE] . Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.35757 of 2011 (10) dt.14-12-201 2/7 In this case, petitioners are the officials of Housing & Urban Development Corporation Limited (here-in-after referred to as HUDCO). Petitioner No. 1 is encorporated Company through Regional Chief, located at Patna, Petitioner No. 2 is the Regional Chief, HUDCO at Kolkata, petitioner No. 3 is the Assistant General Manager (Projects), HUDCO at Patna, petitioner No. 4 is the Senior Manager (Finance), HUDCO at Patna, and petitioner No. 5 is the Sr. Manager (Law) at Lucknow Regional Office. This Corporation is basically providing the financial assistance for the construction of building in Urban Area. In the complaint petition it has been mentioned that the complainant entered into an agreement on 30th June 2002 for constructing a multi storeyed building on the land situated at Rajendra Nagar. The accused persons-petitioners agreed to provide loan amounting to Rs. 95,000,00/- (Ninety-five lakhs) and the said amount was sanctioned in favour of the complainant and accordingly the loan agreement was executed on 14th September 2005. According to the terms of the agreement, entire loan amount was fixed to be returned in eight quarterly instalments @ Rs. 11,75,000/- (Eleven lakhs and seventy-five Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.35757 of 2011 (10) dt.14-12-201 3/7 thousand) and some cheques were taken duly signed against the loan granted to the complainant. It has been alleged that only the loan of Rs. 82,000,00/- (Eighty-two lakhs) was paid and remaining Rs. 12,000,00/- (Twelve lakhs) was still to be paid but the said amount was not given on false pretext one way or other. It has been alleged in the complaint petition that the complainant returned Rs. 56 lakhs to the accused persons and also sum of Rs. 2, 00,000/- lakhs was taken in cash in the name of processing fee but no receipt was granted of the said amount. It has further been alleged that the complainant proposed to sell out the flats of his share and further requested to grant loan to the intended purchaser and the amount be adjusted in his loan but due to demand of illegal gratification of 2%, which was objected by petitioner due to which the complainant stopped granting loan to the purchaser and for that reason purchaser did not turn up which caused loss to the complainant. The complainant went to the office of the accused persons to know the progress of work but the complainant was insulted by the accused persons and one of the accused, namely, Deepak Kr. Jha lost tamper and made derogatory words against him. After this incident, the complainant gave a letter in writing Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.35757 of 2011 (10) dt.14-12-201 4/7 on 28th March 2007 to the accused persons and requesting them to co-operate and behave properly with him but they were adamant for illegal demand of gratification and for that reasons they retained the sanctioned loan amount. On 9th December 2008 the complainant gave a letter in writing to the accused persons to make payment of the approved loan to the flat owner and the amount be adjusted against his account but the accused persons sat tight over the matter. The complainant sent a legal notice to the accused persons for payment of the approved loan amount to the flat owner and the amount be adjusted against his account and his loan amount be released but the accused persons neither gave any reply nor made any payment of the said loan. On 29th September 2009 at about 12.00 Noon when the complainant went to see accused persons in the office, he met with Manoj Kumar Pandey who asked the complainant to see Deepak Babu as he had already completed all the work related to him. The complainant visited the house of Deepak Babu on 31.05.2009 at 7.30 A.M. in the morning and on seeing the complainant he told, unless he would pay the demand of the accused persons, he would not do anything in his favour. It has been alleged that the complainant tried to convince them but utterly failed. The complainant was ex

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.