Madhya Pradesh High Court

Shambhu Prasad Gupta vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 3 April, 2024

Author: Vishal Dhagat

Bench: Vishal Dhagat

1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VISHAL DHAGAT
ON THE 3 rd OF APRIL, 2024
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 719 of 2018

BETWEEN:-
SHAMBHU PRASAD GUPTA S/O BAIJNATH GUPTA,
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, OCCUPATION: MANAGER M.P.
STATE CIVIL SUPPLIES CORPORATION, R/O NEW
COLLECTORATE BUILDING REWA AND DISTT. REWA
(MADHYA PRADESH)

.....APPLICANT
(BY SHRI SUMIT RAGHUWANSHI - ADVOCATE)

AND
1. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THR. P.S.
KOTWALI, DISTT. KATNI (MADHYA PRADESH)

2. RAHUL SUNDRANI S/O PRATAP RAI SUNDRANI,
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, R/O TIKIYAMAL
CHAURAHA, GURUNANAK WARD, KATNI
(MADHYA PRADESH)

.....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI D.K. PAROHA - GOVT. ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT
NO.1/STATE AND SHRI A. KAUSHAL - ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT
NO.2/COMPLAINANT)

This application coming on for admission this day, the court passed the
following:
ORDER

Petitioner has filed this petition under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for quashing of FIR and final report.

2. Police Station Kotwali, District Katni has registered offences under Sections 420, 120-B and 409 of IPC against the petitioner at Crime No.1109/2017. As per allegations made in complaint, complainant Rahul

Sundrani along with Narendra Bulani had opened Poonam Industries. They had given security in form of FDR valuing Rs.7,50,000/- of HDFC Bank to Civil Supplies Corporation. Security was with Shambhu Prasad Gupta - Manager of Civil Supplies Corporation. There was dispute between said partners, therefore, Narendra Bulani has given letter to Manager that FDR may not be released till dispute between partners is resolved. Allegation was made that Narendra Bulani acting hand in glove with Manager Shambhu Prasad Gupta got said security released in his favour and same was deposited in account of his Firm Sai Kripa Industries. Over said complaint, FIR was registered against the petitioner.

3. Counsel appearing for petitioner submitted that co-accused in the case

namely Narendra Bulani filed petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. before this Court which was allowed and FIR as well as charge-sheet was quashed. Applicant is made accused in the case with aid of Section 120-B and his case is better than other co-accused persons. In view of same, prayer was made by counsel appearing for petitioner to quash FIR, charge-sheet and consequential proceedings arising out of it.

4. Government Advocate appearing for State opposed the prayer for quashing of FIR and charge-sheet. It is submitted that as per prosecution version, applicant for wrongful gains in connivance with Manager of Civil Supplies Corporation got security i.e. FDR released and thereafter deposited the same in account belonging to him. Petitioner was having dishonest intention. In view of same, offence under Section 120-B and 409 of IPC is made out against the petitioner. In these circumstances, petition be dismissed.

5. Heard the counsel for the parties.

6. Court on 23.08.2023 in M.Cr.C. No.38992/2022 quashed charge-sheet

as well as charges which are framed against petitioner therein i.e. Narendra Bulani.

7. In case of Narendra Bulani Court relied on order dated 14.06.2023 passed in M.Cr.C. No.14431/2023 (Vaheed Khan and others Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and another), relevant paras of said judgment is quoted as under:-

"6. "Trust" has been defined in Legal Glossary published by Legislative Department, Government of India as follows:

"Tru st: 1 . an obligation annexed to the ownership of property, and arising out of a confidence reposed in and accepted by the owner or declared and accepted by him for the benefit of another and the owner [s.3, Indian Trusts Act] u;kl Â¼Vz~LVÂ½ ; 2. to

response confidence in [s. 14, ill. (f), Indian Evidence Act] Hkjkslk]

fo'oluh;rk ; 3. responsibility nkf;Ro."

7. Black Law Dictionary defined 'trust' as under:-

"Trust, 1. The right, enforceable solely in equity, to the beneficial enjoyment of property to which another person hold the legal title; a property interest held by one person (the trustee) at the request of another (the settlor) for the benefit of a third party (the beneficiary). 2. Trust is fiduciary relationship regarding property

and charging the person with title to the property with equitable duties to deal with it for another's benefit. Trust exists when property is to be held or administered by one person on behalf of another or for some purpose other than his own benefit or when creator of trust hands over control on asset which is to be administered by another in capacity as such for benefit of some

person (beneficiary) other than the trustee or for some impersonal object."

8. On going through aforesaid definition of 'trust', it is clear that owner (settlor) has to hand over the property to another person i.e. trustee for benefit of third party beneficiary. In the present case, agreement to sale (contract between petitioners and respondent No.2) will not fall within the definition of contract creating trust of fiduciary relation. Therefore, it cannot be said that there is breach o f trust has been committed by petitioners if they had sold the property in violation of agreement between petitioners and the respondent No.2. Respondent No.2 has a case of breach of contract and not criminal breach of trust. Further no offence under Section 420 of IPC is said to have been committed by petitioners as there was no misrepresentation or inducement by them to respondent No.2 on basis of which property is delivered to them. Petitioners had committed breach of contract for which there is civil remedy to respondent No.2."

8. Taking into consideration aforesaid judgment Court held that offence under Section 409 of IPC is not made out. Owner of property (settler) has not handed over property to another person i.e. trustee for benefit of third party. There was commercial transaction between partnership firm and M.P. Civil Supplies Corporation Limited. For completing civil works security was given to Civil Supplies Corporation. After completion of work FD is to be released. There is no allegation that FD has illegally been released without completion of work, neither M.P. Civil Supplies Corporation has any grievance against the

petitioner. There was no entrustment or fiduciary relationship between partnership firm and M.P. Civil Supplies Corporation. Relationship between said was only commercial. FIR as well as charge-sheet in respect of co-accused has already been quashed by this Court. Case of petitioner stands on similar footing. In view of same, petition is allowed. Charge-sheet as well as charges framed by the trial Court against the petitioner are quashed.

9. The matter is remanded back to the trial Court to consider if any other offence against the petitioner is made out or not.

10. With aforesaid directions, M.Cr.C. is disposed off.

11. Certified copy as per rules.

(VISHAL DHAGAT) JUDGE sp/-