Page 1

1

NON-REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 215 OF 2014 [Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No.3399 of 2012)  

Indo Asian Ltd. .. Appellant

Versus

State of Uttrakhand & Anr. .. Respondents

J U D G M E N T

K. S. RADHAKRISHNAN, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. The High Court  while exercising its  powers conferred  

under  Section  482  of  the  Code  of  Criminal  Procedure  

quashed  proceedings  of  Criminal  Case  No.1004  of  2010  

arising out of Crime No.24 of 2010, holding that no offence  

has been made out under Section 406 IPC.  

Page 2

2

3. The  Appellant  is  a  company  engaged  in  the  

manufacture  of  copper  wire  having  its  factory  at  SIDCUL,  

Haridwar.   The  accused-Respondent  No.2  is  running  his  

business in the name of his sole proprietorship concern by  

name  M/s.  Dynasty  India  and  also  in  the  name  of  his  

company named M/s.  Dynasty  India  Private Limited.    On  

25.8.2008,  a  contract  was  entered  into  by  the  accused-

Respondent No.2 whereby it was to process the copper rods  

to be supplied by the Appellant Company into copper wire.   

4. The  Appellant  submitted  that  during  the  period  

between  4.7.2008  to  November,  2008,  the  Appellant  

entrusted  in  total  copper  rods  weighing  39,689  kgs.  for  

processing  and  out  of  that  the  accused  returned  only  

33,440.10 kgs.  of  copper  wire  to  the Appellant  Company.  

Copper weighing 26.87 kgs. was used in processing, and as  

such, the copper rods weighing 6,222.04 kgs. remained with  

the  accused-Respondent  No.2  which,  according  to  the  

Appellant,  was  misappropriated  and converted  to  his  own  

use  and  the  said  copper  was  never  returned  to  the

Page 3

3

Appellant.  Few correspondences were exchanged between  

the parties, including few meetings as well.   According to  

the Appellant, even though the accused had undertaken to  

return  the  copper  rods,  the  same  was  not  done.  

Consequently,  the  Appellant  preferred  a  complaint  which  

was registered as Crime Case No.24 of 2010 registered at PS  

Rampur, Haridwar under Section 406 IPC.     

5. The  investigating  officer  initially  filed  a  report  on  

30.4.2010.  Again  there  was  further  investigation  under  

Section 173(8) of the Criminal Procedure Code and, after due  

investigation,  a  charge-sheet  was  filed  on  13.12.2010  

against the accused under Section 306 Cr.P.C.  Respondent  

then preferred Writ Petition No.224 of 2010 before the High  

Court for quashing the FIR and not to arrest him.   While the  

Writ  Petition  was  pending,  the  Additional  Chief  Judicial  

Magistrate took cognizance of the case vide his order dated  

23.12.2010, and issued summons.  Those proceedings were  

challenged before the High Court and, as already stated, the

Page 4

4

High Court quashed those proceedings,  against which this  

appeal has been preferred.  

6. We  have  gone  through  the  FIR  as  well  as  various  

invoices  produced  before  us.   On  going  though  the  

allegations raised in the FIR as well as the documents, we  

are of the view that the High Court, at the threshold, should  

not have quashed the complaint and the summons issued by  

the Criminal Court.   In the circumstances, we are inclined to  

allow this appeal and set aside the order of the High Court  

and leave it to the Criminal Court to proceed with the case in  

accordance with law.  We make it clear that we have not  

expressed any opinion on the merits of the case and leave it  

entirely  for  the  Criminal  Court  to  decide  the  case  on  the  

basis  of  the  evidence  adduced  by  the  parties.   Ordered  

accordingly.

……………………………..J.   (K. S. Radhakrishnan)

……………………………..J.

Page 5

5

 (Vikramajit Sen) New Delhi, January 21, 2014.