Bhagwandas Auto vs Unknown
2022 Latest Caselaw 7643 Cal

 18.11.2022
Item No.34
  BR



                              CRR 4334 of 2008


                  In the matter of : Bhagwandas Auto
Finance Ltd.


               Mr. Amarta Ghosh .... for the petitioner

               Mr. N.P. Agarwal,
               Mr. Pratick Bose      ....for the State


            This revisional application under Section 482 of

the Criminal Procedure Code           seeking an order of

quashment of the judicial order passed by learned Chief

Judicial Magistrate at Alipore     in C-7347 of 2008     on

4.10.2008

declining to pass any direction on the petition

filed by the petitioner under Section 156 (3) of the Cr P C

under the signature of Mr. Vishal Agarwal upon the

concerned P.S. to register a case under Section 406/120B

of the Indian Penal Code .

Mr. Amarta Ghosh, learned counsel

representing the petitioner submits that the opposite party

no. 1 happens to be the erstwhile wife of one of the

Directors of the company. Mr. Vishal Agarwalla and

opposite party no. 3 and 4 are the brothers of the opposite

party no. 1. They used to occupy the property given to Mr.

Agarwalla as it was attached to the post of Director of the company. Mr. Agarwalla resigned from the post of Director

and moved out of the premises but the opposite parties

did not vacate the premises for a considerable period of

time. Hence the criminal proceeding was sought to be

initiated by the company. In course of hearing it

transpires that the company entrusted the immovable

property in question along with its fixtures, fittings and

other home appliances to the Director for his use and for

the use of his family and not with the accused persons. Mr.

Amartya Ghosh, learned counsel representing the

petitioner further submits that on a subsequent point of

time the accused persons moved away vacating the flat

and while doing so they had taken valuable articles

belonging to the company. However, such submission on

factual aspect is not there within the petition under Section

156(c) of the Cr P C . Since admittedly the Director of the

company was entrusted with flat and its fixtures and

furniture , estranged wife of the Director and her brothers

cannot be said to be said to have committed any offense

within the meaning of Section 405 of the Indian Penal Code

as no entrustement was made with them by the company.

Therefore, the impugned order does not warrant any

interference. However, the company is at liberty to

approach the appropriate Court of law for proper redressal With this observation the criminal revision is

disposed of but without costs.

Let a copy of the judgment be sent to the learned

trial Court for information and necessary action.

All parties are to act on the server copy of this order duly downloaded.

Urgent certified copy, if applied for therefore be

made available upon compliance of requisite formalities.

(Siddhartha Roy Chowdhury, J.)