Page 1

NON-REPORTABLE     IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA            

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

   CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 2114 2013   (Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 1233 of 2012)

J.L. Soman & Ors.          ... Appellants                 Vs. State of Bihar & Anr.     ... Respondents

WITH CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.2115 2013  

(Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No.1232 of 2012) AND

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 2116 2013  (Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No.1234 of 2012)

O R D E R

V.Gopala Gowda,J.

Leave granted.

2. These  criminal  appeals  have  been  filed  by  the  

appellants as they are aggrieved by the final common

Page 2

Crl.A.@S.L.P. (Crl.) No. 1233 OF 2012  

judgment and order dated 29.07.2011 passed by the High  

Court  of  Judicature  at  Patna  dismissing  their  

petitions for the reason that their earlier criminal  

misc. petitions were dismissed by a common order dated  

12.06.2007  after  hearing  the  parties  which  fact  is  

admitted by the appellants but they again approached  

the High Court for similar relief. Hence, the High  

Court was not inclined to interfere with the same in  

the said criminal misc. petitions and dismissed the  

same.  Aggrieved by the said orders passed in Criminal  

Misc. Case Nos. 15687 of 2011, 16326 of 2011 and 15681  

of 2011, these criminal appeals have been filed by the  

appellants urging various facts and legal contentions  

and prayed to set aside the impugned order and quash  

the proceedings initiated against the appellants after  

taking cognizance of the offences alleged against them  

by the respondents/complainants in these appeals.

3. The  necessary  facts  of  the  case  are  stated  

hereunder:-

2

Page 3

Crl.A.@S.L.P. (Crl.) No. 1233 OF 2012  

The appellants, namely, J.L. Soman, K.D.P. Murty  

and  T.K.  Mukherjee  were  working  as  the  Managing  

Director,  General  Manager  and  Distribution  Manager  

respectively, at Uni-Sankyo Ltd., a limited Company,  

during  the  period  of  service  of  the  complainants,  

namely, Sidharth Burman, S.K. Sinha and Rajnikant who  

have been arrayed as respondent No.2 in the respective  

criminal appeals.  

4. The complainants resigned from their services from  

the  aforesaid  Company  on  03.02.2003,  04.02.2003  and  

04.02.2003 respectively. On resignation, they claimed  

full and final settlement and claimed salary, bonus,  

leave encashment, gratuity etc. which were allegedly  

due to them by the Company. The appellants, on the  

other hand, alleged that the complainants had allowed  

misappropriation of stocks and payments received from  

customers, allowed accumulation of outstanding dues to  

the  Company  against  goods  sold  by  allowing  

indiscriminate  sales  and  did  not  recover  the  huge  

outstanding amounts although it was promised. Due to  

3

Page 4

Crl.A.@S.L.P. (Crl.) No. 1233 OF 2012  

this, their full and final settlement of accounts was  

kept pending by the Company.  The complainants denied  

the allegations and filed criminal complaints against  

the  appellants  alleging  cheating  and  forgery,  among  

other offences.     

5. By  orders  dated  02.05.2006,  24.4.2006  and  

25.4.2006, the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Gaya,  

took cognizance of the offences against the appellants  

punishable under Sections 418, 504 and 120B of the  

Indian Penal Code and issued summons and warrants to  

them.  The  appellants  filed  criminal  misc.  petitions  

before  the  High  Court  under  Section  482  of  the  

Criminal Procedure Code (“Cr.P.C.” in short) seeking  

for quashing of the entire proceedings on the file of  

the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class including  

taking of cognizance vide the aforesaid orders.  The  

High  Court  disposed  of  those  petitions  vide  common  

order dated 12.06.2007 in Criminal Misc. Nos. 23569 of  

2007, 25544 of 2007 and 25546 of 2007 with a direction  

to the appellants to appear in the court below within  

4

Page 5

Crl.A.@S.L.P. (Crl.) No. 1233 OF 2012  

four weeks ordering their prayer to be considered. The  

appellants  contend  that  the  High  Court  vide  order  

dated 12.06.2007 did not adjudicate on the correctness  

or otherwise of the orders dated 02.05.2006, 24.4.2006  

&  25.4.2006  and  again  filed  criminal  miscellaneous  

petitions before the High Court for quashing of the  

entire proceedings including aforementioned orders of  

cognizance.  The  High  Court  dismissed  the  same  vide  

order  dated  29.07.2011  stating  that  appellants  had  

approached  the  High  Court  earlier  seeking  the  same  

relief and the same was disposed of. Aggrieved by the  

same,  the  present  appeals  have  been  filed  by  the  

appellants urging certain grounds.

6. When these cases were listed for admission after  

notice, the learned senior counsel for the appellants  

Mr. Nagendra Rai, agreed for the observations made by  

this Court during the course of his submissions, to  

verify from the records of the Company in which the  

second  respondent  in  each  one  of  these  criminal  

appeals  were working, as to what exactly the monetary  

5

Page 6

Crl.A.@S.L.P. (Crl.) No. 1233 OF 2012  

benefits due to them by the Company are with reference  

to  the  claim  made  by  each  one  of  them  which  are  

mentioned in detail in their private complaints filed  

before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, First Class, for  

certain offences alleged to have been committed by the  

appellants under Sections 420,468,504, 120B, 406/34 of  

the IPC in complaint case No. mentioned in the table  

below,  the  monetary  dues  from  the  Company  is  also  

mentioned in the relevant column of the table :

Sl.No. Name Complaint  case No.

Amount claimed

1 Sidharth  Burman

315 of 2006  1,66,335/-

2 S.K. Sinha 319 of 2006  1,18,178/- 3 Rajnikant 374 of 2006  1,48,008/-

7. A detailed statement of affidavit was directed to  

be filed by them when these matters were listed for  

admission after issue of notice by this Court.  The  

affidavit of K.D.P Murty s/o late K.S.Murty, General  

Manager  of  Uni-Sankyo  Ltd.,  resident  of  B.N.R.  

6

Page 7

Crl.A.@S.L.P. (Crl.) No. 1233 OF 2012  

Apartment,  Hyderabad  was  filed  stating  certain  

relevant  facts  in  relation  to  these  appeals  

questioning  and  challenging  the  common  order  dated  

29.07.2011 passed by the High Court of Judicature at  

Patna filed under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. seeking  

to quash the entire proceedings initiated against the  

appellants  by  the  contesting  respondents  before  the  

Judicial  Magistrate,  First  Class,  Gaya.  In  the  

affidavit, the claims of each one of the contesting  

respondents have been mentioned along with the reasons  

in relation to their resignation from their services  

and also alleged the damage caused by each one of them  

to the Company which are not required to be adverted  

to in this order in view of the stand taken by the  

appellants  in  the  affidavit  filed  by  the  aforesaid  

person at para 4 which reads thus:

“4. In any view  petitioner with utmost  veneration state that the petitioner is  ready  to  abide  by  and  accept  any  order/direction of this Hon’ble Court to  put an end to this vexatious litigation  which  has  travelled  up  to  this  court,  

7

Page 8

Crl.A.@S.L.P. (Crl.) No. 1233 OF 2012  

wherein  criminal  law  has  been  set  in  motion.”

8. However, as could be seen from the averments made  

in  the  complaint  by  each  one  of  the  contesting  

respondents-complainants  herein  against  the  

appellants,  it  is  alleged  that  the  appellants  had  

committed cheating and forgery against the contesting  

respondents-complainants  with  a  motive  to  grab  the  

amount,  the  details  of  which  are  mentioned  in  the  

complaint. Before the Judicial Magistrate First Class  

some of the respondents-complainants were examined as  

witnesses  before  taking  cognizance  and  issuing  

summons, and after recording their statements, it is  

alleged  by  the  appellants  that  on  incorrect  

appreciation of material available on record and lack  

of  application  of  mind,  the  learned  Judicial  

Magistrate First Class was pleased to take cognizance  

for offences punishable under Sections 418, 504 and  

120B  of  the  IPC  against  the  appellants  and  issued  

summons without serving the same on them and without  

8

Page 9

Crl.A.@S.L.P. (Crl.) No. 1233 OF 2012  

following the procedure as required under Sections 82  

and 83 of the Cr.P.C., the non-bailable warrants were  

issued to the appellants for their appearance before  

the  learned  Judicial  Magistrate  First  Class  in  the  

proceedings.

9. The correctness of the same was challenged by the  

appellants  before  the  High  Court  of  Judicature  at  

Patna by filing criminal misc. petition Nos. 23569 of  

2007, 25544 of 2007 and 25546 of 2007. The same came  

to be disposed of by common order on 12.06.2007 with a  

direction  to  the  appellants  to  appear  before  the  

learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, within four  

weeks  whereby  their  petition  under  Section  205  for  

recalling the warrant of arrest as also the attachment  

order  may  be  considered.  Thereafter,  the  cognizance  

taken  in  the  proceedings  was  challenged  by  the  

appellants in  the second round of misc. petitions,  

which came to be dismissed vide common order dated  

29.07.2011  for  the  reason  that  the  appellants  had  

earlier approached the High Court as stated by them in  

9

Page 10

Crl.A.@S.L.P. (Crl.) No. 1233 OF 2012  

para  2  of  their  petitions.  Therefore,  the  learned  

single Judge was not inclined to interfere with the  

above said petitions and the same were dismissed. The  

said orders are challenged before this Court in these  

criminal appeals.   

10. This Court after condoning the delay on 06.02.2012  

issued notice in all these cases and passed an interim  

order  staying  the  operation  of  the  orders  dated  

02.05.2006,  24.04.2006  and  25.04.2006  in  complaint  

case  Nos.  315,  319   and  374  of  2006  respectively,  

passed by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Gaya,  

Bihar.

11.  We have perused the impugned order and also the  

complaints  filed  by  the  contesting  respondent-

complainants  in  these  criminal  appeals.  The  

allegations were made against the appellants that they  

have committed offences punishable under the aforesaid  

provisions of the IPC and as their claims made with  

the  Company  have  not  been  settled,  we  therefore,  

10

Page 11

Crl.A.@S.L.P. (Crl.) No. 1233 OF 2012  

directed the appellants’ counsel to ascertain as to  

what exactly is the amount due to each one of the  

contesting  respondents-complainants  in  these  appeals  

from  the  company.  In  the  course  of  submissions,  

learned senior counsel Mr. Nagendra Rai on 06.12.2013,  

made  a  categorical  submission  that  the  Company,  in  

which the contesting respondents have been working, is  

willing to  settle their claim by giving a sum of  

1,00,000/-  to  each  one  of  them.  His  submission  is  

placed on record, and we have perused the same, having  

regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and  

the fact that the contesting respondent in each one of  

these appeals has claimed his monetary benefits under  

various  heads  as  mentioned  in  their  complaints.  It  

would  suffice  for  this  Court  to  pass  an  order  

directing the Company and the appellants to see that  

the amount of  1,20,000/- in relation to S. Burman,  

1,10,000/- in relation to Rajnikant, and  1,00,000/-  

in relation to Sanjay  Kumar Sinha is paid towards  

full  and  final  submission  of  all  their  claims,  by  

11

Page 12

Crl.A.@S.L.P. (Crl.) No. 1233 OF 2012  

issuing demand draft in their favour within two weeks  

from the date of receipt of the copy of this order  

failing which the appellants/Company will be liable to  

pay an interest at the rate of 9% per annum on the  

above said sums from the date of resignation by the  

complainants  till  the  date  of  payment.  Further,  we  

direct the appellants/Company not to write any letter  

either  to  the  employer  where  the  contesting  

respondents are working at present or any letter to  

whomsoever  to  disturb  their  employment  with  their  

respective employer. We hereby set aside the orders  

dated 02.05.2006, 24.4.2006 and 25.4.2006, passed by  

the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Gaya, whereby he  

took  cognizance  of  the  offences  punishable  under  

Sections 418, 504 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code  

and issued summons and warrants. We also quash the  

proceedings arising out of the complaint case Nos. 315  

of  2006,  319  of  2006  and  374  of  2006  before  the  

Judicial Magistrate First Class, Gaya, Bihar.

12

Page 13

Crl.A.@S.L.P. (Crl.) No. 1233 OF 2012  

12. In  view  of  the  above  directions  given  to  the  

appellants/Company, these appeals are disposed of.

 ………………………………………………………………………J.                        [SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA]

………………………………………………………………………J.         [V. GOPALA GOWDA]

New Delhi, December 17, 2013

13