It was stated that the companyplainant had filed a Title Suit number178/2002 before the learned Sub Judge claiming his transfer order was mala fide.
An application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 in short the Code was filed before the High Court challenging legality of the order and summons.
Therefore, they were liable to face trial for offences punishable under Sections 406 and 409 IPC.
The prayer for interim protection was rejected.
Statement of companyplainant was recorded on 13.2.2002.
The companyplainant, who was then working in another companycern applied for the post, was called to the interview on 14.7.1995 and was asked to report at the Bombay office of the appellant number1 company on 1.8.1995 for training.
It was, inter alia, submitted that companyplaint was mis conceived the companyplainant had number companye to Court with clean hands and had suppressed material facts.
The basic allegations in the companyplaint were that an advertisement was issued by the appellant number1 seeking applications for appointment to the post of Area Manager.
Factual background in nutshell is as follows Respondent number1 hereinafter referred to as the companyplainant filed a companyplaint on 9.8.2002 alleging that the appellants had companymitted offences punishable under Sections 406 and 409 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 in short the IPC .
But numbersuch letter came to be issued and he was number appointed as Area Manager.
He was given appointment from 9.9.1995 by letter dated 1.9.1995 wherein it was indicated that he was appointed as Field Officer and number Area Manager.
After companypletion of the training period the companyplainant was asked to report to the Patna depot.
Grievance was, therefore, made that the accused persons had initially deceived him by appointing as Field Officer and number as Area Manager, though he was assured that the appointment letter in that regard will be issued.
According to the respondent, on receipt of the appointment letter the companyplainant asked the companycerned officials i.e. the other accused persons as to how he was being appointed as Field Officer when he had appeared at the interview for the post of Area Manager.
By order dated 8.10.2002 the learned Judicial Magistrate held that sufficient material existed to proceed under Section 418 IPC against the appellants and, therefore, summons were issued for their appearance.
Stand of the companyplainant on the other hand was that finally his claim was rejected on 15.12.2001 and subsequently his services were terminated on 29.4.2002.
He was assured that the letter for the post of Area Manager will be issued in the first week of April, 1996.
The date of occurrence was indicated to be between 12.7.1995 to 8.5.2002.
