IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Criminal Misc. Application No. 62 of 2010 Indra Jeet Singh Managing Partner M/s Okara Trade Parcel Carriers 143, Transport Centre Punjabi Bagh New Delhi-35. …………..…Petitioner. Versus 1. State of Uttarakhand through Secretary, Home, Dehradun. 2. Captain Pankaj Sheel S/o R. Sheel, Assistant General Manager Security, I.G.L. Ltd. Kashipur District Udham Singh Nagar. ……….Respondents. Shri L.K. Tiwari, Advocate, for the petitioner. Smt. Mamta Bisht, A.G.A. for respondent No. 1. Shri S.K. Posti, Advocate for respondent No. 2. Hon’ble Prafulla C. Pant, J. By means of this petition, moved under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short Cr.P.C.), the petitioner has sought quashing of the proceedings of criminal case No. 2734 of 2009, State Vs. Indrajeet Singh, relating to offence punishable under Section 407 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short I.P.C.), P.S. Kashipur, District Udham Singh Nagar, pending in the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kashipur. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the affidavit, counter affidavit and rejoinder affidavit. 2 3. Brief facts of the case are that a First Information Report was lodged by respondent No. 2 against the petitioner, which is registered as F.I.R./crime No. 388 of 2009, relating to offence punishable under Section 407 I.P.C. It is alleged in the First Information Report by the complainant that the complainant company and the petitioner entered into compromise in July 2008, whereby the petitioner agreed to transport the goods of the complainant company to various places in India. It is alleged by the complainant that in respect of 12 items, mentioned in the First Information Report, valued at Rs. 30, 55,240/-, the goods after being entrusted to the petitioner were withheld by him and not delivered at the destinations. After investigation, charge-sheet has been filed by the Investigating Officer and the petitioner has been summoned in the criminal case No. 2734 of 2009. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that it is a case of civil liability, and ingredients of offence punishable under Section 407 I.P.C., are not made out. It is further pleaded on behalf of the petitioner that there is no misappropriation of property entrusted to him. However, since after conclusion of the investigation, it has come on the record that the entrusted goods were withheld by the petitioner (probably to pressurise and to make the complainant to pay earlier dues, payable to the petitioner), it cannot be said that no breach of trust is 3 committed by the petitioner. However, it is made clear that this Court is not giving any final opinion in the matter and it is left open to the trial court to examine whether the petitioner had any criminal intention on his part or not. But in the facts and circumstances of this case, it is not a fit case to be interfered by this Court in its jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. 5. Therefore, without expressing any opinion as to the final merits of the case, the petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is dismissed with the observation that if the petitioner surrenders before the court concerned, his bail application shall be heard and disposed of without unreasonable delay. (Prafulla C. Pant, J.) Dt:23.03.2010 Sweta 4