Rakesh Dixit and Others vs State of Madhya Pradesh and Others

N.K. Gupta, J.—By way of present application u/s 482 of Cr.P.C., the applicants have challenged the order dated 22.9.2007 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Jabalpur (Shri Sharad Bhramkar) in MJC No. 3/2007 whereby the complaint for the offences under Sections 409 and 420 of IPC was registered against the applicants. The prosecution''s case, in short, is that the respondents No. 2 to 5 had moved a criminal complaint against the applicants before the trial Court with the pleadings that they were workers in RPG Transmission Limited. They were forced on the point of gun to resign from the company and thereafter their dues were not given to them. It was found that the various deductions relating to provident fund and insurance were done by the company according to the agreements from time to time, but no contribution was given by the management to the Life Insurance Corporation or such offices, and therefore the amount entrusted to the applicants was misappropriated and a cheating was done by the applicants. Under such circumstances, a complaint for the offence under Sections 147, 148, 149, 342, 406, 420, 467, 471 and 506-B of IPC was filed.

The learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Jabalpur after considering the prosecution evidence dismissed the complaint for the remaining offences, but registered it for the offence punishable under Sections 409 and 420 of IPC.

The learned senior counsel for the applicants submits that the respondents No. 2 to 5 could not show as to how the applicants No. 3 and 4 were made party in the case. They were not connected at all with the RPG Transmission Limited. It is also submitted that the company RPG Transmission Limited was not made party in the case, and therefore the separate liability of the applicants should have been shown if that company was not made as an accused in the case. It is further submitted that the complainants had moved the Labour Court and thereafter the Appellate Tribunal, but their matter was dismissed. Thereafter they approached the High Court by filing writ petitions, which were dismissed vide order dated 15.1.2013. The Writ Appeal No. 215/2014 filed by them was also dismissed. Under such circumstances, there was no cheating established by the applicants. No misappropriation of fund is established. The learned counsel for the applicants has placed his reliance on the judgment of Hon''ble the Apex Court in the case of Rajeswar Tiwari and Others Vs. Nanda Kishore Roy, to show that if any dispute of rate was between the parties, then it is a case of civil nature and no criminal complaint under Sections 409 and 420 of IPC can be registered.

On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents No. 2 to 5 has read out the entire evidence under Sections 200 and 202 of Cr.P.C. and it is submitted that the complainants were forced to submit their resignation. They are ready to serve the concerned company. Their funds were not given in an appropriate manner. The learned counsel for the respondents No. 2 to 5 also read the information given by the Life Insurance Company to widow of one employee about the status of pension etc.

After considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, it is apparent that the respondents No. 2 to 5 have filed a criminal complaint after prosecuting the matter before the Labour Court and the Appellate Tribunal. For the offence u/s 409 of IPC, it was for the complainants to show that a criminal breach of trust was done by the accused persons. When the Labour Court found that the all the dues of the complainants were paid and nothing remained to be paid, then it cannot be said that the pension, insurance amount or provident fund which was deducted but not deposited by the applicants before the concerned authorities or misappropriated by them. If the dues of the complainants were not found any more by the Labour Court, then it could be said that nothing was misappropriated by the applicants or the accused persons. Prima-facie no offence u/s 409 of IPC was made out against the applicants.

For the offence of cheating, there must be a wrongful gain by the accused persons and wrongful lose caused to the complainants. If there is a dispute between the rate of payment, then certainly it is a matter of civil nature and no criminal intention of the applicants is established, it cannot be said that the applicants have any wrongful gain in that matter. After perusal of that letter written by the Life Insurance Company to the widow of that employee, clearly indicates that the pension was given by the Life Insurance Company according to the deductions deposited with the LIC. The applicants have submitted various documents to show that the deductions and contributions of the company were submitted to the LIC within time and they were not the defaulters. Under such circumstances, it cannot be said that the applicants have done any cheating with the respondents No. 2 to 5. There is a dispute relating to the rate of deduction and rate of payment, but such dispute amounts to a matter of civil nature. It cannot be said that prima-facie a cheating was done by the applicants.

It is already considered and rejected by the trial Court as well as the Labour Court that the respondents No. 2 to 5 were forced to resign, and therefore the trial Court did not register the criminal complaint u/s 506(II) of IPC. Under such circumstances, the entire force of the complaint was already reduced by the trial Court.

It is very strange that the complainants lost their case before the Labour Court and thereafter they lodged a criminal complaint for the offence under Sections 409 and 420 of IPC without making RPG Transmission Limited as an accused. The applicants could be liable for the offence committed by the company, because they were the Office Bearers or Directors of the Company. If the company was not made as an accused, then it was for the complainants to establish the overt-act of each and every accused. It was not shown that out of these applicants, who was liable to deduct the sum and to send the same to the LIC and other institutions.

On the basis of the aforesaid discussion, it is apparent that the entire matter is of civil nature and no offence u/s 409 or 420 of IPC is made out against the applicants. In the light of the judgment of Hon''ble the Apex Court in the case of Rajeshwar Tiwari (supra) a criminal complaint could not be registered for the set of facts as pleaded by the complainants. Under such circumstances, where the complainants have hidden the fact that they lost their case before the Labour Court and the appellate Tribunal, a complaint was registered before the trial Court, and therefore when it is a case of civil nature, no such complaint could be registered. The impugned order dated 22.9.2007 passed by the trial Court cannot be maintained, because no such offence is made out against the applicants. Therefore, the present petition filed by the applicants u/s 482 of Cr.P.C. can be accepted. Consequently, it is hereby accepted. The impugned order dated 22.9.2007 passed by the learned JMFC, Jabalpur in MJC No. 3/2007 is hereby set aside and the entire proceeding of that case is hereby quashed. Accordingly, the complaint filed by the respondents No. 2 to 5 is hereby dismissed. A copy of this order be sent to the trial Court for information and compliance.