IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.16247 of 2009 1. Mahesh Kumar, son of Lakhan Yadav, Dharampura, PS Sikandra, Dist. Jamui. 2. Umesh Kumar, son of Late Kailash Prasad, resident of Bari Gulani, P.S. Dhamaul, District Nawadah. 3. Mukesh Kumar, Son of Baleshwar Prasad, resident of Jagdishpur, P.S. Nadriganj, District Nawadah 4. Atul Kumar, Son of Ashok Singh, Resident of village Khampura, P.S. Matihani, District Begusarai 5. Uday Kumar, Son of Bharat Prasad, resident of Saharsa, P.S. Sikandra, District Jamui. 6. Sameer Ghosh, Son of Sanatan Ghosh, resident of Farraka, P.S. Farakka, District Mushribad (West Bengal) 7. Awadh Kishore Kumar, Son of Kapildeo Prasad, resident of Sahdi, P.S. Araarri, District Sheikhpura 8. Mundrika Gope, Son of Late Raghu Gope, resident of Masridih, P.S. Sikandra, District Jamui 9. Sanjeet Kumar Yadav, Son of Ashok Singh, resident of Belkhandi, P.S. Chebra, District Sheikhpura – Petitioners. With Cr.Misc.No. 16392 of 2009 1. Chetan Handa, son of Deepak Rai, R/o K0G/1/130 M.I.G. Flat, PS Vikaspuri, New Delhi. 2. Sanjeev Chhibber, Son of Indirajeet Chhibber, R/o C 677 Vikaspuri, PS Vikaspuri, District New Delhi – petitioners. Vs. The State of Bihar – opp. party in both the cases. … For the petitioners : Mr. Chitranjan Sinha, Sr. Advocate and Mr. Amish Kumar, Advocate in both the cases. For the State : Mr. Jharkhandi Upadhyay, A.P.P. in both the cases. … 3 26.4.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the counsel appearing on behalf of the State. These applications have been filed for quashing the entire proceeding including the order, dated 7.1.2009 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nalanda in Rajgir PS Case No. 36/2008 by which cognizance has been taken against the petitioners for the offences under sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 472, 120B/34 of the Penal Code. M/s. S.K. Traders took a franchise from M/s. Glaze India Limited to appoint agents on commission basis. M/s. Glaze India 2 Limited sells electrical goods, garments etc. S.K. Traders took a franchise and job of appointing agents. The F.I.R. has been instituted not by any agent rather by the police authority on the ground that S.K. Traders and Glaze India Limited are mis-utilizing or misusing or misguiding, agents and deceiving them. It is alleged that Rs. 5770/- was taken from each person by S.K. Traders. Such persons were sent for training, but were not given jobs as per the promise of S.K. Trading Company. On investigation and on consideration of the documents which have been seized from the house of the petitioners of Cr. Misc. No. 16247 of 2009 who are employees of S.K. Traders, it appears that cell phones and certain items which were to be sold by the agents were seized. There is an agreement between S.K. Traders and Glaze India Limited as well as the persons who have been engaged as agents which indicate that they have not been duped to believe that they are going to be employed or given a permanent employment of any sort by either S.K. Traders or Glaze India Limited, rather the agreements reveal that the agents were to be given commission if they inducted others as agents. In the backgrounds aforesaid the facts do not reveal any offences under sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 472, 120B/34 of the Penal Code is made out against the petitioners of Cr. Misc. No. 16247 of 2009 and the petitioners of Cr. Misc. No. 16392 of 2009 who are the Director and employee of M/s. Glaze India Limited. 3 In the entire case diary not a single witness who has been appointed as an agent and who has allegedly paid Rs.5770/- has come forward to support the allegations. It is said that they were supplied the items which had to be sold by the company and have claimed that they have not received the commission. The agreement indicates that the commission is to be paid to the agent if he forms a chain by making other members, who would act as selling agents. The agreement is that the agents have to multiply their members by motivating and inducting other persons as agents for the sale of the items belonging to Glaze India Limited. The witnesses do not allege that they were ever promised job in lieu of the fact that they have been appointed as agents. In the facts aforesaid the order taking cognizance, dated 7.1.2009 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nalanda in Rajgir PS Case No. 36/2008 is hereby quashed as this court finds that in fact no case is made out under sections 420, 406, 467 and 468 of the Penal Code. These applications are allowed. haque (Sheema Ali Khan, J.)