Case Facts:
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.16752 of 2008 (19) dt.13-09-2012 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Miscellaneous No.16752 of 2008 ====================================================== Sudipta Ghosh .... .... Petitioner/s Versus The State Of Bihar & Anr .... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Mr. Anjan Chakraborty For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MANDHATA SINGH ORAL ORDER 19 13-09-2012 This is an application for quashing the order dated 24.9.2004 by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Patna in Complaint Case No.1307 of 2004 by which learned Magistrate has taken cognizance under [STATUTE] . Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. Complainant’s case, in brief, is that there was an advertisement in the daily newspaper ‘Hindustan’ of Patna edition on 14.01.2002 regarding franchise for selling products of M/s Patriot Automation Projects Limited through its Chairman-cum-Managing Director, later on which was persuaded by accused nos.2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 at different occasions to instigate to deposit security money for the same, and advance for the articles. For the petitioner, it is said that he received Rs. Five lacs as security money and Rs. Two lacs as advance, but later on did not supply goods or return the money. Submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that he was only employee of the company, in no way liable for the act of the Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.16752 of 2008 (19) dt.13-09-2012 company. He only issued receipt after receiving of the money and deposited the same in the account of company. Later on, finding company’s work unsatisfactory, he resigned also. So, no accusation can be levelled against the petitioner and order of cognizance or further prosecution is liable to be quashed. Counsel for the complainant/ opposite party no.2 is also there to state that he was similarly liable for the act of the company, but I do not agree with learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 rather find and hold that petitioner was only an employee not liable for the act of the company as per allegation. Accordingly, this quashing application is allowed and impugned order dated 24.9.2004 in Complaint Case No.1307 of 2004 along with the whole prosecution against the petitioner is hereby quashed. Vikash/- (Mandhata Singh, 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.