IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR.MISC. NO.13222 OF 2010 1. ANIL RAMPAL, SON OF SRI VINOD KUMAR RAMPAL, RESIDENT OF A1/153, PASCHIM VIHAR, POLICE STATION PASCHIM VIHAR, NEW DELHI 2. AMIT PANDEY, SON OF SHRI S.C.PANDEY, RESIDENT OF B-29, CHANDRA NAGAR, FRIENDS COLONY, POLICE STATION CIVIL LINES, DISTRICT MORADABAD. AT PRESENT, RESIDING AT FLAT NO. 52, GANGA TOWER, LCT GHAT, POLICE STATION GANDHI MAIDAN, DISTRICT PATNA …………………………………………………………………PETITIONERS VERSUS 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. ANJANI SINGH, DAUGHTER OF RAMASHISH PRASAD SINGH, RESIDENT OF MOHALLA MACHHUA TOLI, AMRUDI GALI, POLICE STATION KADAMKUAN, DISTRICT PATNA ……………………………………………………………..OPPOSITE PARTIES ******* 3 10/05/2010 Heard Counsel for the petitioner, the Opposite Party No. 2 and the A.P.P. appearing on behalf of the State. The petitioner no. 1 is the Vice President of the Idea Company whereas petitioner no. 2 Amit Pandey is the Marketing Executive of Idea and is posted at Patna. The complainant Anjani Singh claims that she has not been paid her salary for the past three months by the named accused persons i.e. the petitioner no. 1 Amit Rampal and Ashutosh Sah. On perusal of the complaint, it appears that it has been specifically stated that the complainant was appointed on the monthly salary of Rs. 3,500/- by Ashutosh Sah on 06.04.2009. It is said that the petitioner no. 2 Amit Pandey is said to have imparted training to the 2 complainant. Learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that as far as the petitioner no. 1 is concerned, he has no direct concern either with the appointment of the complainant or for payment of the salary of the complainant. It is further submitted that the only allegation against petitioner no. 2 is that he is said to have imparted training to the complainant. Counsel appearing on behalf of the complainant submits that in the statement on S.A., the complainant has specifically alleged that the petitioner no. 2 Amit Pandey was in direct touch with Ashutosh Sah and this complainant and he had also assured the complainant that she would be getting her entire salary. It is also stated that in the Court below, three documents were filed on behalf of Amit Pandey which are the vouchers showing payment of salary for the months of April, May and June to the complainant. In these vouchers, the complainant is described as Anjani, Anjali Singh and Anjani Singh which according to the complainant indicate that these vouchers are false and fabricated documents and have been produced by the petitioner no. 2 in order to build a defence. After perusing the entire complaint petition as well as the evidence that has come on record, this Court 3 finds that there is no allegation whatsoever against the petitioner no. 1. As far as the petitioner no. 2 is concerned, this Court finds that the submission on behalf of the petitioner is that it is the distributor who employees the person to work on the post of Customer Care Executive, the company cannot be saddled with the consequences of such employment, and for this purpose, Counsel refers to the agreement between the distributor and the company. On the other hand, Counsel for the complainant submits that Clause 7.24 (c) of the said agreement indicates that the distributor would have to reimburse the salary of only one employee/staff of the distributor out of the total employees recruited by the distributor up to a sum of Rs. 2,000/-. It is, therefore, submitted on behalf of the complainant that some liability would also falls squarely on the face of the company. This clause is not very relevant for the purpose of the complainant in view of the fact that the distributor may appoint more than one person as his staff and, therefore, merely the fact that the company would have to reimburse the expenses up to the sum of Rs. 2,000/- would not bring the company within the purview of the charges for non-payment of the salary. Considering the entire facts as mentioned aforesaid, I find that the petitioner Amit Rampal and Amit 4 Pandey cannot be held to be responsible for the offences under Sections 406 and 504/34 of the Indian Penal Code as the complaint and the statement on S.A. do not make out the facts which constitute the allegations under the aforesaid sections. This application is allowed. Anand ( Sheema Ali Khan, J.)