S.D.BAJAJ,J - (1.) FROM a perusal of the First Information Report Exhibit P.1 it is abundantly clear that M/s. Punjab Savings (India) Ltd., of which petitioner Ranjit Singh is Manager and petitioner Yudhbir Singh is the Managing Director, have closed down 14 of their branches after collecting huge fixed term deposits from the area covered, thereby rendering it well nigh impossible for the deposits to collect their deposits from them on maturity. The allegation is that the Managing Director has committed criminal breach of trust in respect of these deposits and is living in luxury after closing down the business. The Managing Director, two Directors as also the Manager have all moved for quashing of the First Information Report on the ground of liability to repay the deposits on maturity being purely civil.
(2.) OBSERVATIONS made by this Court in Chitranjan Mohan Vashisht v. Nirmal Singh, 1986 Chandigarh Criminal Cases 255 and Dharavir and others v. State of Punjab, 1986(2) Recent Criminal Reports 559 are on distinguishable facts and are, therefore, wholly irrelevant on the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case because through their own action in closing down their business establishments at as many as 14 branches, the petitioners have rendered it impossible for the depositors to make demands for return of their deposits on maturity and confirmed their (of the depositors) belief that the petitioners have committed a criminal breach of trust of their deposits with M/s. Punjab Savings (India) Ltd. Reading the First Information together with the observations made in Emperor v. Khawaja Nazir Ahmad, AIR 1945 Privy Council 18 and the Supreme Court observations in Madhavrao Jiwaji Rao Scindia and another v. Sambhajirao Chandrojirso Angre and others, 1988(1) Recent Criminal Reports 565, I feel that the uncontroverted allegations in the First Information Report prima facie estalish the offence of criminal breach of trust against the accused-petitioners and there is ts no ground to quash the First Information Report and the summoning order. Closing down of their business establishments at 14 places clearly reflects the intention of the petitioners to misappropriate and commit criminal breach of trust in respect of the collected amounts. In result Criminal Misc. No. 7938-M of 1988 and Criminal Misc. No. 2004-M of 1989 both fail and are accordingly dismissed. Petition dismissed.;