GH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 504 V Pmsent: ~ Advocate for the petitioner. ORAL- ORDER ' (passed on 18/09/2009) Procedure, 1973 (in This is a petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal short the Code) for quashment of the criminal proceeding pending before the eCourt Magistrate First Class, Raipur in criminal case No. 706/2005 (new number cn'minal Misc. Case No. 238/2006); of Judicial ouence misappropriation would only amount to abuse of the process of the Court. Learned counsel for the petitioner are heald. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued that aceording to complaint made befom the Court by the hm PROCEDURE AFFLICTION 1973. UNDER SECTION 482 OF‘THE ' CODE OF CRIMINAL (SB :Hon’ble Mr. T.P.8ha:ma, J.) Shn' Dev Kumar Ajmen'a, Advocate with Shn' ’Pum't Ruparel, PetitionerlAccused Arvind Bhai, aged about 45 of Tn'ymbaki Joshi, yeals, Sambalpur, Orissa. ' 0 osite Part . Comglainant M/s Sakuntala «Saree Centré, paImCI'shjp mm, represented Kumar, Agmement‘partner, shop by 87, Pandn’ Cloth Market, .w respondent the petitioner working as a salssman and he has booked some order worth Rs. 40,000/— to diEerent business Finns and has collected Rs. 40,000] - but has not deposited the money to the respondent but the statement of complaint witness Vijay Kumar AgraWal (palmer of the hrm ) reveals that after taking information he came to know that petitioner has taken additional article of Rs. 40,000/- for delivery and has received Rs. 40,000] - but has not deposited to him and illegally he has benented himself. Learned counsel for the petitioner further argued that cause of action arose at the place situated in the State of Orissa and not within the jurisdiction of the State of Chhattisgarh or within the jurisdiction of trial Court if the allegation made in the compliant and preliminary evidence is even admitted by the petitioner then same would not be sufhcient for warrant conviction of the petitioner under Section 409 of the Indian Penal Code therefore any continuance of criminal proceeding against the petitioner would amount to abuse of the process of the Court. Copy of the order taking cognizance, c‘opy of the complaint, copy of the statement of Vijay Kumar Agrawal, recorded under Sections 200 and 202 of the Code, and‘copy of the objection relating to territorial jurisdiction by the petitioner are perused. It reveals nom the copy of the complaint and copy of the statement of the Vijay Kumar Agrawal that petitioner was working as a salesman in the complainant’s mm he has taken article of Rs. 40,000/- and has sold the sell to dih‘erent businessman and recovered Rs. 40,000] - but has not deposited ”J Rs. 40,000/- to the complainant. A copy of the complaint, copy of the statsment also shows that present petitioner is not owner of the articles he has sold the articles on behalf of the complainant he has received the money on behalf of the complainant, a1ticle and money were not belonging to the petitioner but belonging to the complainant, The money in the hands of petitioner was the money of the' complainant and he . was in possession of the money as a agent he was under obligation to deposit the money to the complainant or to discharge the entrustment in accordance with the direction of the complainant but neither he deposited the money to the complainant nor discharged the entrustment on the dixection of the complainant. The money in hands of petitioner was money entrusted to him and in any misappropriation or fail to discharge the trust in accordance with the rule would be dennitely oh‘ence punishable under Section 409 of the Indian Penal Code. If allegation made in the complaint and the statement is admitted by the petitioner in its face value then same would sumcient for warranting conviction of the petitioner for the on'ence punishable under Section 409 of the Indian Penal Code. On due consideration, I do not fmd any substance in the petition. Consequently, this petition is liable to be dismissed and it is hereby dismissed in liminie with cost of Rs. 5,000/— be deposited in the High Court Legal Aid Committee. LA. Nos. 01 8:; 02 is also dismissed. /T sdi- t p'_ sharma \: Judges V \‘LL-