Case Facts:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Miscellaneous No.4185 of 2011 ====================================================== Dr. Lalita Jha .... .... Petitioner/s Versus The State Of Bihar & Anr. .... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Dinesh Jha, Adv. For the State : Mr. APP For O.P.No.2 : Mr. Prasoon Sinha, Adv. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVAJI PANDEY ORAL ORDER 5 09-07-2012 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner for the State and for O.P.No.2. In this case petitioner is challenging the order dated 3rd June 2010 passed in Cr. Revn. No.72 of 2010 as wel as order dated 19th March 2009 passed in Sitamarhi .S.Case No. 289 of 2001 whereby and whereunder cognizance has been taken [STATUTE] (B) IPC and 63 and 68 of the Companies Act, 1956. From the complaint petition it appears that it has been alleged that the petitioner Sales Officer of MINMAC CAPITAL SERVICES LTD. and a large number of persons invested money under the said Company through the petitioner and on maturity the company could not return the same. Request was made for return of the same but in vain which led to filing of the present complaint Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.4185 of 2011 (5) dt.09-07-2012 2 / 3 2 petition. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the Chief Judicial Magistrate sent the matter [STATUTE] (3) Cr.P.C. to Police on the basis of which Sitamarhi P.S.Case No. 289 of 2001 was registered and after investigation, Final Form was submitted in favour of petitioner, but the court below has taken cognizance on the basis of materials available on record. It is submitted that the complaint petition does not disclose that petitioner was any way involved in the said incident. It is further submitted that the petitioner has not taken a single farthing rather the complainant being Sales Officer of the Company collected the money but did not deposit in the Company. He further submits that it is a case of civil nature. Counsel for O.P.No.2 has contradicted the argument of petitioner and submitted that though he was Sales Officer of the company and as a Sales Officer he was assigned the duty to contact the client and get the money deposited and accordingly large number of persons have invested money in the Company through him. Having heard the rival contention of the parties, truth of allegation and counter allegation cannot be adjudicated at this Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.4185 of 2011 (5) dt.09-07-2012 3 / 3 3 state. In this view of the matter, this petition is dismissed with the liberty to the petitioner to raise all the points at the appropriate stage of trial. Jay/- (Shivaji Pandey, J)

Applicable IPC Section: 409

Statute Text:
Section 409 of the Indian Penal Code. Criminal breach of trust by public servant or by banker, merchant or agent, etc. Whoever, being in any manner entrusted with property, or with any dominion over property in his capacity of a public servant or in the way of his business as a banker, merchant, factor, broker, attorney or agent, commits criminal breach of trust in respect of that property, shall be punished with imprisonment for life, or with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.