Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 17 (0.27 seconds)Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 205 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Section 468 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 406 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947
Section 23 in Indian Companies Act, 1913 [Entire Act]
Section 34 in Indian Companies Act, 1913 [Entire Act]
State Of Haryana And Ors vs Ch. Bhajan Lal And Ors on 21 November, 1990
It is also admitted
position that the Company did not make the deduction
of subscription at the enhanced rate for its wrongful
gain because the complainant himself states that the
amount of Rs.11,00,000/- deducted from the salary of the
employees on account of the subscription of the Union
was credited to the Account of the Union. Therefore, in
this view of the matter even the admission of facts, as
stated in the complaint petition, do not make out any
case under Sections 406,467,468,420 and 120B of the
Indian Penal Code against the petitioners, who being the
responsible officers of the company, made deduction of
the Union subscription from the salary of the employees
on the instruction of the General Secretary of the Union
acting or purporting to act bona fide in good faith on the
instruction of the General Secretary of the Union. There
is complete absence of any mens rea on the part of the
petitioners for committing the alleged offences for
which the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance
against them and issued summons upon them. As held
in the case of State of Haryana and others V. Ch. Bhajan
Lal and others ( Supra). This court in exercise of its
powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has to see that
whether the prosecution of the petitioners is an abuse of
the process of Court on account of the fact that the
complainant has prosecuted them with ulterior motive.
The attending facts and circumstances of the case as
pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioners
indicate that the complainant was dismissed from the
service for his misconduct, so, if this circumstance is
considered along with other allegations made in the
complaint petition, the possibility cannot be ruled out
that the complainant has implicated the petitioners with
oblique motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused
due to his personal grudge and the prosecution of the
petitioners in the case is definitely an abuse of the
process of the Court."