Case Facts:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Miscellaneous No.14073 of 2012 ====================================================== Anita Kumari , Daughter of Ramsati Prasad, Resident of Village – Bari Bhagamari, P.S. – Teljhari, District – Sahebganj. .... .... Petitioner/s Versus The State Of Bihar .... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR ORAL ORDER 2 27-06-2012 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. None appeared on behalf of the State. The present petition has been filed with a prayer to restore Cr. Misc. No. 45196 of 2008, which stood dismissed on 24.02.2012 due to non-prosecution. It has been stated that on the date when case was called out, learned counsel for the petitioner was in the midst in another case in another Court, and as such, he failed to appear in this case and case stood rejected. At the time of hearing of this restoration petition, I have also allowed learned counsel for the petitioner to address the Court on merit in the main petition i.e. Cr. Misc. No. 45196 of 2008. Cr. Misc. No. 45196 of 2008 was filed against an order of cognizance dated 04.09.2008 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Purnea. By the said order learned Magistrate Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.14073 of 2012 (2) dt.27-06-2012 2 / 3 2 has taken cognizance of offence under [STATUTE] . After filing of the aforesaid quashing application, on 02.08.2011, when matter was taken up, case was got adjourned on the ground of illness of learned counsel for the petitioner Sri Arjun Prasad. Thereafter, on 17.08.2011, 18.10.2011, 22.11.2011 and 16.02.2012, case was got adjourned. Finally, on 24.02.2012, petition stood dismissed due to non- prosecution. It was submitted on behalf of the petitioner that in this case a supplementary affidavit has been filed, which is on record. It was argued that before the Trial Court one witness Shankar Kumar Sah was examined as P.W. 1. However, he has not supported the prosecution case. It was submitted that charge in this case has been levelled that petitioner had misappropriated Rs. 1,00000/-. Almost on same allegation the petitioner was proceeded departmentally and he was put under suspension. At subsequent stage, suspension has been revoked on a condition of deposit of Rs. 1,00000/- by the petitioner and petitioner has already deposited Rs. 100000/-. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, in view of subsequent development, it is a fit case for interference with the criminal proceeding. Fact remains that the present petition was filed against Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.14073 of 2012 (2) dt.27-06-2012 3 / 3 3 order of cognizance. It is also admitted that thereafter trial has already commenced. During the pendency of this case at least one witness has already been examined. In view of the fact that trial has already commenced, learned counsel for the petitioner seeks permission to withdraw the quashing application. Be that as it may, in view of peculiar facts and circumstances, as well as stand taken by learned counsel for the petitioner, the restoration petition stands allowed and petitioner is granted liberty to withdraw the main petition i.e. Cr. Misc. No. 45196 of 2008. After restoration, the main quashing application stands dismissed as withdrawn. Praful/- (Rakesh Kumar, 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.