MOBASHAR JAVED AKBAR Vs. ASIAN AGE UTKAL PUBLICATION
LAWS(ORI)-2010-7-24
HIGH COURT OF ORISSA
Decided on July 28,2010

MOBASHAR JAVED AKBAR Appellant
VERSUS
ASIAN AGE (UTKAL) PUBLICATION Respondents


Referred Judgements :-

HARIDAYA RANJAN PRASAD VERMAAND OTHERS V. STATE OF BIHAR AND ANOTHER [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF KARNATAKA VS. L MUNISWAMY [REFERRED TO]
REJESH BAJAJ VS. STATE NCT OF DELHI [REFERRED TO]
VEER PRAKASH SHARMA VS. ANIL KUMAR AGARWAL [REFERRED TO]
ALL CARGO MOVERS INDIA PVT LTD VS. DHANESH BADARMAL JAIN [REFERRED TO]
SURYALAKSHMI COTTON MILLS LTD VS. RAJVIR INDUSTRIES LTD [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

- (1.)The petitioners herein, namely, Mobashar Javed Akbar and Ors. have sought to challenge an order dated 28.1.2002 taking cognizance of offence under Section 420, IPC in I.C.C. No. 41 of 2000 pending before the Court of the S.D.J.M., Bhubaneswar on the basis of a complaint filed by opposite party. Asian Age (Utkal) Publication (P) Ltd.
(2.)On perusal of the complaint filed by the opposite party (Complainant, it appears that the allegations contained therein pertain to purported allegations for violation of terms and conditions of a tripartite agreement dated 7.5.1995 entered into by Asian Age (Utkal) Publication (P) Ltd. (Complainant-Company) and Mr. Mobashar Javed Akbar (Opp. Party No. 1) and the then Franchise Holder Sri Swapna Sudhan Bose representing Asian Age Newspaper.
(3.)The complainant alleges that he had incurred substantial expenditure pursuant to the memorandum of understanding entertained into between the parties amounting to Rs. 19,47,693/- towards pre publication expenses including sum of Rs. 7,12,400/- for two MTNL lines. It was further alleged that due to illegal aborting the contract, the accused persons had not returned the amount spent by the complainant. Accordingly a complaint was filed, alleging therein that the accused persons had committed deception and wrongful gain and or caused wrongful loss and committed criminal breach of trust in respect of the money spent by the complainant company. It was further alleged that in spite of demand made on the accused persons for reimbursement/return of the said money, they did not respond to the demand notice issued on behalf of the complainant. It was further alleged in the complaint petition that the accused persons had committed an offence under Section 406 I.P.C.


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.