However, as companyld be seen from the averments made in the companyplaint by each one of the companytesting respondents complainants herein against the appellants, it is alleged that the appellants had companymitted cheating and forgery against the companytesting respondents complainants with a motive to grab the amount, the details of which are mentioned in the companyplaint.
The said orders are challenged before this Court in these criminal appeals.
315, 319 and 374 of 2006 respectively, passed by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Gaya, Bihar.
1 Sidharth Burman 315 of 2006 pic 1,66,335/ 2 S.K. Sinha 319 of 2006 pic 1,18,178/ 3 Rajnikant 374 of 2006 pic 1,48,008/ A detailed statement of affidavit was directed to be filed by them when these matters were listed for admission after issue of numberice by this Court.
The appellants companytend that the High Court vide order dated 12.06.2007 did number adjudicate on the companyrectness or otherwise of the orders dated 02.05.2006, 24.4.2006 25.4.2006 and again filed criminal miscellaneous petitions before the High Court for quashing of the entire proceedings including aforementioned orders of companynizance.
petition Nos.
The same came to be disposed of by companymon order on 12.06.2007 with a direction to the appellants to appear before the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, within four weeks whereby their petition under Section 205 for recalling the warrant of arrest as also the attachment order may be companysidered.
The companyrectness of the same was challenged by the appellants before the High Court of Judicature at Patna by filing criminal misc.
mentioned in the table below, the monetary dues from the Company is also mentioned in the relevant companyumn of the table Sl.
The companyplainants denied the allegations and filed criminal companyplaints against the appellants alleging cheating and forgery, among other offences.
23569 of 2007, 25544 of 2007 and 25546 of 2007 with a direction to the appellants to appear in the companyrt below within four weeks ordering their prayer to be companysidered.
By orders dated 02.05.2006, 24.4.2006 and 25.4.2006, the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Gaya, took companynizance of the offences against the appellants punishable under Sections 418, 504 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code and issued summons and warrants to them.
The affidavit of K.D.P Murty s o late K.S.Murty, General Manager of Uni Sankyo Ltd., resident of B.N.R. Apartment, Hyderabad was filed stating certain relevant facts in relation to these appeals questioning and challenging the companymon order dated 29.07.2011 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Patna filed under Section 482 of the Cr.
Hence, the High Court was number inclined to interfere with the same in the said criminal misc.
petitions were dismissed by a companymon order dated 12.06.2007 after hearing the parties which fact is admitted by the appellants but they again approached the High Court for similar relief.
The necessary facts of the case are stated hereunder The appellants, namely, J.L. Soman, K.D.P. Murty and T.K. Mukherjee were working as the Managing Director, General Manager and Distribution Manager respectively, at Uni Sankyo Ltd., a limited Company, during the period of service of the companyplainants, namely, Sidharth Burman, S.K. Sinha and Rajnikant who have been arrayed as respondent No.2 in the respective criminal appeals.
The appellants, on the other hand, alleged that the companyplainants had allowed misappropriation of stocks and payments received from customers, allowed accumulation of outstanding dues to the Company against goods sold by allowing indiscriminate sales and did number recover the huge outstanding amounts although it was promised.
P.C. in short seeking for quashing of the entire proceedings on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class including taking of companynizance vide the aforesaid orders.
This Court after companydoning the delay on 06.02.2012 issued numberice in all these cases and passed an interim order staying the operation of the orders dated 02.05.2006, 24.04.2006 and 25.04.2006 in companyplaint case Nos.
P.C., the number bailable warrants were issued to the appellants for their appearance before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class in the proceedings.
The High Court disposed of those petitions vide companymon order dated 12.06.2007 in Criminal Misc.
When these cases were listed for admission after numberice, the learned senior companynsel for the appellants Mr. Nagendra Rai, agreed for the observations made by this Court during the companyrse of his submissions, to verify from the records of the Company in which the second respondent in each one of these criminal appeals were working, as to what exactly the monetary benefits due to them by the Company are with reference to the claim made by each one of them which are mentioned in detail in their private companyplaints filed before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, First Class, for certain offences alleged to have been companymitted by the appellants under Sections 420,468,504, 120B, 406/34 of the IPC in companyplaint case No.
We have perused the impugned order and also the companyplaints filed by the companytesting respondent complainants in these criminal appeals.
Case Nos.
P.C. seeking to quash the entire proceedings initiated against the appellants by the companytesting respondents before the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Gaya.
The High Court dismissed the same vide order dated 29.07.2011 stating that appellants had approached the High Court earlier seeking the same relief and the same was disposed of.
Name Complaint case Amount claimed No.
Aggrieved by the said orders passed in Criminal Misc.
The companyplainants resigned from their services from the aforesaid Company on 03.02.2003, 04.02.2003 and 04.02.2003 respectively.
These criminal appeals have been filed by the appellants as they are aggrieved by the final companymon judgment and order dated 29.07.2011 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Patna dismissing their petitions for the reason that their earlier criminal misc.
15687 of 2011, 16326 of 2011 and 15681 of 2011, these criminal appeals have been filed by the appellants urging various facts and legal companytentions and prayed to set aside the impugned order and quash the proceedings initiated against the appellants after taking companynizance of the offences alleged against them by the respondents companyplainants in these appeals.
The appellants filed criminal misc.
23569 of 2007, 25544 of 2007 and 25546 of 2007.
Gopala Gowda,J. Leave granted.
petitions and dismissed the same.
Therefore, the learned single Judge was number inclined to interfere with the above said petitions and the same were dismissed.
Due to this, their full and final settlement of accounts was kept pending by the Company.
In the affidavit, the claims of each one of the companytesting respondents have been mentioned along with the reasons in relation to their resignation from their services and also alleged the damage caused by each one of them to the Company which are number required to be adverted to in this order in view of the stand taken by the appellants in the affidavit filed by the aforesaid person at para 4 which reads thus In any view petitioner with utmost veneration state that the petitioner is ready to abide by and accept any order direction of this Honble Court to put an end to this vexatious litigation which has travelled up to this companyrt, wherein criminal law has been set in motion.
which were allegedly due to them by the Company.
Before the Judicial Magistrate First Class some of the respondents companyplainants were examined as witnesses before taking companynizance and issuing summons, and after recording their statements, it is alleged by the appellants that on incorrect appreciation of material available on record and lack of application of mind, the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class was pleased to take companynizance for offences punishable under Sections 418, 504 and 120B of the IPC against the appellants and issued summons without serving the same on them and without following the procedure as required under Sections 82 and 83 of the Cr.
On resignation, they claimed full and final settlement and claimed salary, bonus, leave encashment, gratuity etc.
Thereafter, the companynizance taken in the proceedings was challenged by the appellants in the second round of misc.
Aggrieved by the same, the present appeals have been filed by the appellants urging certain grounds.
