Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner started working in the year 2006 as Sales Manager-Software with the respondent No.1 company. In the year 2011, he was appointed as Sales Head on a monthly salary of Rs.1,32,620/-. According to him, neither he was paid salary w.e.f. April, 2011 nor any reasonable explanation was given to him, and on the contrary the respondents acted criminally against the petitioner. On 23.07.2011, the respondent No.4, who was the Director of the company vide e-mail dated 23.07.2011 had instructed respondent No.2 for clearing the dues of the petitioner. When the petitioner approached respondent No.2 on 27.07.2011, instead of clearing the dues, respondent No.2 assaulted him, tore petitioner's shirt's collar, attacked him by broken glass and also threatened to kill him. On 16.08.2011, the petitioner filed a complaint to the police about the incident dated 27.07.2011 and subsequent events. The police, however, on 02.09.2011 closed the enquiry. On 17.08.2011, the petitioner was sacked from the respondent company without any termination letter. On 18.08.2011, the respondent No.1 had served the petitioner a proposal for settlement of dues. On 01.09.2011, the petitioner had served a legal notice upon respondent No.1 to clear the dues of a sum of Rs.4,30,540/- towards the outstanding salary and allowances from April to August, 2011 and Rs.4,64,100/- towards leave encashment for 105 days upto 17.8.2011 and Rs.20,00,000/- towards compensation for mental and physical harassment. The petitioner also claimed a sum of Rs.9,30,495/- towards committing criminal breach of trust and cheating. On 01.09.2011, the respondent also sent a demand notice to the petitioner with intention to tarnish his image; calling him cheater, unsocial and absconder while spoiling his career. On 05.09.2011, the petitioner denied the contents and defamatory allegation of respondent in their demand notice dated 01.09.2011. Since the police also did not take any action, therefore, on 24.10.2011 the petitioner filed a criminal complaint under Section 200 of the Cr.P.C. alongwith an application under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. alleging that the respondent No.1 (through respondent Nos. 3 to 5) have committed the offence jointly and severally under Sections 355/406/420/499/ 500/120-B of IPC etc. On 16.01.2012, the learned MM declined to entertain application under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. with liberty to the petitioner to lead his pre-summoning evidence. On 22.06.2012, the learned MM after recording pre-summoning evidence of the petitioner, did not find any substance and dismissed the complaint under Section 203 of the Cr.P.C. The order of dismissal of the complaint was assailed by the petitioner before the revisional court, however, the same has also been rejected vide impugned order dated 15.03.2013. Hence, the petitioner has approached this court under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C.

9. In the instant case, the petitioner alleged that on 27.07.2011, he went to respondent No.2 to inquire about the outstanding amount and allowances whereupon the respondent No.2, Sunil Gupta, abused, manhandled, physically assaulted the petitioner, tore his shirt's collar, attacked him by broken glass and threatened to kill him. It is stated that respondent No.4 by his e-mail dated 23.07.2011 had instructed the respondent No.2 for clearing the dues, despite that aforesaid treatment was given to the petitioner. The petitioner also stated that the incident was witnessed by Sakir Khan and other colleagues of the company. According to him, he reported the incident to the Director Ms. Manisha Gupta, (respondent No.5 herein), Mr. Nalin Mittal (respondent No.3 herein) and Mr. Uday Anant Vaishampayan (respondent No.4 herein) vide telephone and e-mail dated 27.07.2011. According to the petitioner, instead of taking any action, against respondent No.2, the other respondents also supported him. The petitioner has examined himself in his pre-summoning evidence and has also relied upon certain documents which are marked as Exhibits CW1/A, CW1/B, CW1/1 to CW1/23. The learned MM after examining the material available on record noted that the petitioner did not utter an iota of his allegation, to the effect, that he was defamed by the accused persons in any manner. He did not examine any witness who could have stated on oath that the image of the petitioner was lowered. It was, therefore, found that no offence under Section 500 of the IPC was made out. The learned MM also noted that the petitioner did not allege the ingredients of offence of cheating and neither the ingredients of the offence of criminal breach of trust against the accused persons were found, therefore, both offences were not prima- facie proved. The learned MM also noted that in the absence of any allegations that all the accused persons had conspired together the offence under Section 120-B of IPC is not made out and since there was no eye witness examined by the complainant, therefore, the offence under Section 355 of IPC was also not found to have been made out. With respect to offence under Section 506 of IPC, it has been stated that the petitioner did not allege even a single incident when he was criminally intimidated by any of the accused persons and, therefore, no ingredient of offence under Section 506 of IPC was found. In paragraph No.13 of the order passed by the learned MM, it has been said that the offence under Section 379 of IPC and Sections 41/42 of the IT Act, are also not established. Beside the aforesaid reasoning, the learned MM in paragraph No.14 of his order found that the complainant had waited for 20 days before making complaint with respect to the incident dated 27.07.2011. The aforesaid fact has been considered against the petitioner and while taking overall view into the matter, the learned MM did not find sufficient grounds to proceed against the respondents. Accordingly, the complaint was dismissed under Section 203 of the Cr.P.C.

13. If the allegations and material brought on record before the Magistrate are carefully examined, this court finds that in paragraph No.11 of the order dated 22.06.2012, passed by the Magistrate, the findings recorded therein are perverse. Paragraph No.11 of the said order is being reproduced as under:-

"Section 355 IPC talks about the punishment for the offence of assault or criminal force, with intent to dishonour a person, otherwise then on grave provocation. As per the complainant, on 27.07.2011, he was manhandled by accused no.2, who tore his shirt and attacked with broken glass. I did not find any reasonable evidence, in support of the said allegation. Though, as per complainant, he was saved by his colleagues from the said attack of accused no.2, but none of the said colleagues, were examined in pre-summoning evidence. There was no medical evidence on record, in support of the said allegation. There was no direct or indirect evidence in support of the said allegation. Complainant had relied upon his torn shirt, which was Ex. CWl/A, to emphasis that the said incident had occurred. But he did not give evidence, to show prima facie, that the said shirt was torn by accused no.2 only and nobody else. There was every possibility, that the said shirt might have torn by any other reason except the allegation in question. There was no evidence, that the said shirt had fingerprints of accused no.2, which could have cushioned the allegation of the complainant. No eye witness or hearsay evidence was led by the complainant, in support of the aforesaid allegations. Therefore, the said allegation, remained a bald allegation only, devoid of any reliable evidence. I therefore, did not find any evidence, which could suggest that incident dated 27.07.2011 had in fact occurred. Therefore, accused persons did not commit the offence of Section 355 IPC prima facie".

17. On the basis of the aforesaid analysis of facts and legal position, this court finds that there are sufficient allegation and material available against the respondent No.2 (Sunil Gupta) with respect to offence punishable under Section 355 of the IPC. However, there is no material available against any of the other accused persons for any offence as alleged by the petitioner. The impugned order is, therefore, affirmed so far as the other accused persons are concerned except against the respondent No.2 (Sunil Gupta). It is, therefore, directed that the learned Magistrate to reconsider the matter for framing of charge against the respondent No.2/Sunil Gupta only with respect to the offence punishable under Section 355 of IPC as discussed in the preceding paragraphs.