Petitioner challenged a criminal breach of trust case via Section 482 CrPC, citing delay and civil nature. The Single Judge referred Bhajan Lal guidelines, found prima facie offence made out, and dismissed the petition.
Dismissal of the petition filed under Section 482 CrPC.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Criminal Appeal No. 48 of 2014
Furkan …........ Appellant
Vs.
State of Uttarakhand …..... Respondent
Present : Mr. Mohd. Safdar, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. V.K. Jemini, Deputy Advocate General assisted by Mr. Lalit Miglani, A.G.A. and Ms. Meena Bisht and Ms. Sonika Khulbe, Brief Holders for the State.
JUDGMENT
Hon’ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral)
This appeal is preferred against the judgment and order dated 06.01.2014 passed in Sessions Trial No. 225 of 2013, State v. Furkan, by the court of 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Roorkee, District Haridwar. By the impugned judgment and order, the appellant has been acquitted of the charge under Sections 366 and 366-A IPC, but he has been convicted under Sections 363 and 376 (2) (i) IPC and sentenced as hereunder:-
(i) Rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years and a fine of Rs. 1,000/- under Section 363 IPC. In default of payment of fine,
2
additional imprisonment for a period of three months.
(ii) Rigorous imprisonment for a period of ten years and a fine of Rs. 2,000/under Section 376(2) (i) IPC. In default of payment of fine, additional imprisonment for a period of six months.
controversy, briefly stated are as follows. The victim, a girl of convicted of the charge under Sections e challenge in this petition is made to the chargesheet dated 27.05.2021, cognizance/summoning order dated 05.10.2021 passed in Criminal Case No. 5256 of 2021, State v. Satnam Singh, under Section 406 IPC, by the court of 1st Additional Civil Judge (SD)/Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rudrapur, District Udham Singh Nagar (“the case”).
3
to send rice to Karnal, Haryana. The petitioner provided him a Truck No. PB 04 AA -0972 (“the truck”). The truck was loaded with rice and dispatched on 11.01.2022, but it did not reach to its destination. The total cost of rice was Rs. 10,04,275/-. The informant unsuccessfully tried to contact the truck driver. When the petitioner was approached, he also did not reply satisfactorily. It is this FIR, in which, after investigation, chargesheet has been submitted.
4
the truck had revealed that he never provided his truck for providing any article from the truck. The driver is still missing.
(i) The FIR is delayed. The rice was allegedly loaded on the truck on 11.01.2020, but the FIR was lodged on 26.02.2020.
(ii) The petitioner is not the driver of the truck.
(iii) It is purely a dispute civil in nature, which has been criminal colour.
(iv) The only against the petitioner is that he did not verify the credentials of the driver.
5
“102. In the backdrop of the interpretation of the various relevant provisions of the Code under Chapter XIV and of the principles of law enunciated by this Court in a series of decisions relating to the exercise of the extraordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code which we have extracted and reproduced above, we give the following categories of cases by way of illustration wherein such power could be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently channelised and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised.
6
constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused.
7
“ 405. Criminal breach of trust. – Whoever, being in any manner entrusted with property, or with any dominion over property, dishonestly misappropriates or converts to his own use that property or dishonestly uses or disposes of that property in violation of any direction of law prescribing the mode in which such trust is to be discharged, or of any legal contract, express or implied, which he has made touching the discharge of such trust, or willfully suffers any other person so to do, commits “criminal breach of trust”.
Explanation 1 – A person, being an employer of an establishment whether exempted under section 17 of the Employees’ Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (19 of 1952), or not who deducts the employee’s contribution from the wages payable to the employee for credit to a Provident Fund or Family Pension Fund established by any law for the time being in force, shall be deemed to have been entrusted with the amount of the contribution so deducted by him and if he makes default in the payment of such contribution to the said Fund in violation of the said law, shall be deemed to have dishonestly used the amount of the said contribution in violation of a direction of law as aforesaid.
Explanation 2. – A person, being an employer, who deducts the employees’ contribution from the wages payable to the employee for credit to the Employees’ State Insurance Fund held and administered by the Employees’ State Insurance Corporation established under the Employees’ State Insurance Act, 1948 (34 of 1948), shall be deemed to have been entrusted with the amount of the contribution so deducted by him and if he makes default in the payment of such contribution to the said Fund in violation of the said Act, shall be deemed to have dishonestly used the amount of the said contribution in violation of a direction of law as aforesaid.”
8
prosecution, it is the petitioner, who had provided the truck. It is the petitioner, who had provided the truck driver. It is the petitioner, who had given photocopies of the driving licence of the driver, of the registration certificate, as also the photograph of the truck. According to the chargesheet, they all were not genuine. According to the Registration Certificate, the truck was Daimler India Limited make, whereas the photograph, which the petitioner provided, according to the chargesheet, was Mahindra make. The driving licence, according to the chargesheet, which the petitioner provided, was that of Aas Mohammad, but it had no photograph of Aas Mohammad. Instead, it had photograph of some other person. Not only this, according to the chargesheet, Aas Mohammad was at his residence, injured in an accident, for the last one year when he was contacted. The driver has yet not been traced, as to where is he?
9
inception? Fact remains, it is the petitioner, who was entrusted with the rice. It is the petitioner, who had to ensure the transportation of rice. The rice did not reach the destination.
(Ravindra Maithani, J.) 18.04.2022
Avneet/
1 issue framed by the court
Whether interference under Section 482 CrPC is warranted in a criminal breach of trust case where prima facie offence is made out.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
State of Haryana and Others Vs. Bhajan Lal and OthersReferred¶31
State of Haryana and Others Vs. Bhajan Lal and Others, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 · Who else cites this
3 provisions across 2 enactments
Furkan
State of Uttarakhand
Ravindra Maithani
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
