IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.14312 of 2009 SALIM SULEIMAN SHEIKH, SON OF LATE DR. SULEIMAN SHEIKH, RESIDENT OF TRISHUL APARTMENT, 2ND FLOOR, KANE ROAD, BANDRA BAND STAND, NEAR ST. MERI CHURCH, BANDRA (WEST) P.S. TOWN BANDRA (WEST), MUMBAI. ----- PETITIONER Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. INTEJAR AHMAD KHAN, SON OF LATE JAN MOHAMMAD KHAN, RESIDENT OF AJIMABAD COLONY, MAHENDRU, P.S. SULTANGANJ, DISTRICT PATNA. ----- OPPOSITE PARTIES For the petitioner :- Mr. Keshav Shrivastava, Sr. Advocate Mr. Gaurav Govind, Advocate For the Complainant O.P. No. 2 :- Mr. Suraj Samdarshi, Advocate For the State :- Mr. Atul Chandra, A.P.P. ----------- 3 30.10.2009 This application has been filed against the order dated 30.4.2008 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Patna in Complaint Case No. 486(C) of 2008 whereby the Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Patna has taken cognizance. The main question in this case which has been argued is that the pleadings in the complaint petition do not make out a case under Sections 420 and 406 of the Indian Penal Code. The short facts of the case is that the complainant claims that he was working as a Medical Representative for the petitioner’s company and some salary was due to him from the company. The company has not been made accused in this case rather the petitioner who happens to be the Managing Director of the company has been made accused. In the complaint petition it is stated at paragraph 3 that fd vfHk;qDr us fcuk dksbZ dkj.k crk, gq, ,dk,d ifjoknh dk LVkWi ofdZax o"kZ 1993 esa dj fn;k D;kafd ifjoknh dk osru bR;kfn dk dkQh iSlk vfHk;qDr dEiuh ij ckdh gks x;kA It is further pleaded at paragraph 6 that 2 ;g fd rc ifjoknh viuk fglkc cukdj dEiuh dks Hkstk ftlds vuqlkj ifjoknh dks dEiuh ls tqykbZ 1993 ls Qjojh 1994 rd dk osru 57]000@& (lurkou gtkj) :i;k blds vykos twu 93 ls Qjojh 94 rd dk [kpkZ djhc 58]428@& :i;k blds vykos oksul yhHk budS’kesUV xzsP;wVh bR;kfn lHkh feykdj 3]24]831- 65@& (rhu yk[k pkSchl gtkj vkB lkS bdrhl :I;k iSalB iSlk) dEiuh ij ckdh fudykA The aforesaid two statements made by the complainant are contradictory to each other. The complainant claims that the petitioner’s company had stopped taking work from him in the year 1993. The complainant has not come forth with the definite date indicating when the complainant was stopped from working for the said company. The claim is that he should be paid from July, 1993 to February, 1994. On plain reading of the facts and the S.A., it is manifest that the claim of the petitioner to be paid salary from July, 1993 to February, 1994 is completely unjustified in view of the fact that the complainant admits that he had stopped working in 1993. On the plain reading of the complaint petition this Court finds that no offence is made out under Sections 420 and 406 of the Indian Penal Code and as such quashes the order dated 30.4.2008 taking cognizance in Complaint Case No. 486(C) of 2008 by the Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Patna. This application is allowed. Sanjay (Sheema Ali Khan, J.)