Krishna Devi and anr.. vs State of Punjab and anr..

G.S. Chahal, J.

Smt. Krishna Devi and her husband Bhim Sain have sought the quashing of the First Information Report No. 306 dated 25121988, under section 406 of the Indian Penal Code, registered at Police Station Kotwali, Bhatinda.

According to the allegations made in the FIR, Bhim Sain was employed with M/s Bhushan Medical Agency, Bhatinda. In the course of his employment, it was his duty to collect amounts from outside Mandis where goods were being supplied by the complainant. It was also his duty to make deposits of the collected amounts with the complainant. Bhim Sain stopped attending his duty 56 days before the application was moved by the complainant. When an inquiry was made from his house, Smt. Krishna Devi handed over back all medicines and told the complainant that Bhim Sain had gone out of station wherefrom he shall return by Wednesday he did not return till Wednesday evening and the same gave rise to suspicion against him. On inquiry from various markets, it was learnt that he had effected recoveries from various shopkeepers to whom he had issued Kacha receipts. The amounts so collected, which had been confirmed till then was about Rs. 60,000/. This amount had thus been embezzled although, further scrutiny was still in progress. Smt. Krishna Devi wife of Bhim Sain and Laxman Dass his father had agreed to meet the demand by making up the loss.

So far as Smt. Krishna Devi is concerned, the complaint does not carry any material to make out a criminal case against her. If she had made any promise to make good the loss of the complainant, it may be an effort on her part to save her husband from being prosecuted but not admission of complicity in embezzlement. In this situation, I accept the criminal miscellaneous petition partly and quash the FIR in question so far as it relates to her.

With respect to Bhim Sain, the FIR clearly contains allegations of his committing embezzlement of the funds collected from various shopkeepers of different places to whom the goods had been supplied by the complainant. It will be for the Magistrate to assess the evidence at the proper stage. No case for quashing the proceedings is made out. I dismiss the petition qua Bhim Sain, petitioner