IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. REV. No.313 of 2008 ABHIRAM KUMAR Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 3 8.4.2009 KHAN The petitioner, who is the complainant, is aggrieved by order dated 17.8.2007 passed in Complaint Case No.1842 of 2007, by which cognizance of offence under sections 403, 418, 120B of the Penal Code and section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act has been taken against the accused persons and not under sections 406, 420, 467, 468 of the Penal Code. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in fact the accused persons, who were agent of the petitioner cable company, were given franchises to operate cable network. They were authorized to collect the monthly subscription from the customers but they had misappropriated the same. He submits that the accused persons being the agent of the cable company had committed breach of trust. Having heard counsel for the petitioner, I am not inclined to interfere with the impugned order. If in course of evidence sufficient material comes, it would be open to the petitioner to move an application under section 216 Cr.P.C. With the aforesaid observations, this application stands dismissed. (S.P.Singh,J)