IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.46195 of 2007 KAZA KANCHNA RAO, SON OF LATE K. JANARADHANA RAO, RESIDENT OF GII, GOLKONDA MAINSON, ROAD NO.1, VIVEKANAND NAGAR COMPLEX, VIVEKANAND NAGAR COLONGY, KUNNATBALLY , HYDERABAD, AT PRESENT, GENERAL MANAGER, VIJAI ELECTRICALS LIMITED, RATAN NIWAS, WEST BORING CANAL ROAD, PATNA……...PETITIONER. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR. 2. SANTOSH KUMAR SHRIVASTAV, SON OF DAYA SHANKAR LAL, RESIDENT OF MOHALLA-NEW AREA, P.S. DEHRI-ON- SONE, DISTRICT-ROHTAS. …………………………………………………OPPOSITE PARTIES. ----------- For the Petitioner : M/s. Krishna Prasad Singh, Senior Advocate, Manish Kumar No.1 and Bhaskar Shankar, Advocates. For the State : Mr. Jharkhandi Upadhyay, A.P.P. For O.P. No.2 : Mr. Narendra Kumar, Advocate. --------------- O R D E R 4. 19.1.2009. This application by one of the two persons arrayed as accused in Complaint Case No.C 640 of 2004, is for the quashing of the entire criminal proceeding arising therefrom including the order dated 6.4.2005 passed therein by Sri Jitendra Kumar Dubey, Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Rohtas at Sasaram, whereby he has taken cognizance of offences under Section 379 I.P.C. against both the accused. One Santosh Kumar Shrivastav, the complainant, impleaded herein as O.P. No.2, filed the aforesaid complaint inter alia alleging the commission of offences under Sections 379, 406, 420 and 506 - 2 - I.P.C. at the hands of the accused. It is said that the petitioner and the other accused were employed at the relevant time with the E.C.I. Construction Company (hereinafter referred to as “the Company”) as Senior Manager and Director respectively. The complainant was running an eatery (mess) and providing timely meals and refreshment to the employees of the Company on the assurance of the accused that the payment for the same would be made in time. It is alleged that though in the initial periods timely payment were made the Company gradually started falling in arrears and dues started rising. Request for payment evinced no response and instead the complainant was rebuked and his utensils were also seized. It is alleged further that the two accused in connivance were trying to grab the entire dues which stood at Rs.4 lakhs and they had thereby committed breach of trust. Assailing the impugned order taking cognizance only under Section 379 I.P.C., it was submitted that from the reading of the complaint petition as also the material gathered at the inquiry, there is no allegation of theft having been committed by the accused persons and at best would make out a case of recovery of money dues which obviously would not attract criminal liability. In these premise, it was submitted that the prosecution of the petitioner was an abuse of the process of the court. Having perused the complaint petition and the impugned order, I have no option but to accept the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner. In the result, the impugned order, so far as the petitioner is - 3 - concerned, is quashed and the application is allowed. P.S. (Abhijit Sinha,J)