The companyplainant petitioner sent legal numberice to the respondent number2 but without giving them sufficient time to file a reply, filed a companyplaint before the Magistrate at Danapur, Patna under Sections 34, 403, 404, 406, 408, 418, 420 and 504 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 hereinafter referred to as IPC and under Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881 hereinafter referred to as NI Act .
More so, the petitioner did number even give sufficient time to the accused to respond to the legal numberice as he filed the companyplaint within the close proximity of the date of the numberice.
The private respondent challenged the said order by filing the petition before the High Court which has been allowed vide impugned judgment and order on various grounds, inter alia that there was an agreement between the parties for service for one year and one of the companyditions in the agreement was that the petitioner would number resign from the institute till the companypletion of 3 years.
This special leave petition has been filed against the impugned judgment and order dated 22.7.2011, passed by the High Court of Judicature at Patna in Criminal Misc.
Learned Magistrate, Danapur vide an order dated 12.5.2008 summoned the private respondent for appearance on 12.6.2008, being prima facie of the view that a case under Sections 406, 420 IPC and under Section 138 of NI Act was made out by the petitioner.
Aggrieved, the petitioner approached this Court making the averment in the petition that accused persons had been running a fake institution and offered the appointment to the petitioner on certain terms and in spite of working therein, he was number paid the salary.
Hence, this petition.
The High Court also companycluded that there was numberhing on record to show that the numberice had ever been served upon the private respondent and ultimately allowed the said petition on the ground that it was a case of civil nature as it was a matter of recovery of salary.
No.13116 of 2009 quashing the criminal proceedings against the respondent number2 while allowing the application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 hereinafter referred to as Cr.
In reply to the said show cause numberice, the petitioner submitted that such pleadings be ignored and may number be taken into account for the purpose of disposal of the instant petition.
P.C. Facts and circumstances giving rise to this petition are that The petitioner claimed to have been appointed by the private respondent number2 in a fake dental companylege as a Senior Lecturer for a period of one year and issued 12 post dated cheques for payment of his salary out of which 9 cheques had bounced.
