D.G.R.PATNAIK,J. - (1.) PETITIONER has filed this application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing the criminal proceeding initiated against him vide C/1 case No. 921 of 2001 and for setting aside the orders dated 26.9.2001 and 20.7.2004 whereby summons were ordered to be issued directing him to appear and face trial in the proceeding which is pending in the court of Sri Prafulla Kumar, Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Jamshedpur.
(2.) THE main ground of challenge is that the case has been instituted against the petitioner by the opposite party No. 2 by way of a revenge and with mala fide intentions and is an abuse of the process of the court and further, that even on the basis of the entire allegation in the complaint, no offence whatsoever is made out against the petitioner and since the dispute relates to breach of an agreement of employment, a civil liability at best can be raised and the alleged breach of terms of agreement does not call for criminal liability whatsoever. Facts of the case briefly stated is that the opposite party No. 2 filed a complaint before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jamshedpur on 27.8.2001 which was registered as C/1 Case No. 921 of 2001 against two persons as accused namely the present petitioner and another. The allegation of the complainant inter alia is that under an agreement dated 30.12.1999 by and between the present petitioner and the opposite party No. 2 / complainant, the complainant was appointed as an Officer (Administration) and Chief Personal Advisor, of which the petitioner is one of the Director. The terms of the employment being that the employer would pay a sum of Rs. 20,000/ - per month as salary besides a sum of Rs. 4.00 lakh per annum as retainer -ship fee to the employee and the employer would have no right to terminate the services of the employee till the later attains the age of 55 years. It is alleged that after having joined the company and having rendered his services to the company, the complainant was not paid the stipulated amount of salary, nor was he paid the amount of annual retainer fee. Instead, he used to be paid a sum of Rs. 4,000/ - per month only towards monthly salary. After having served for 18 months, the complainant -opposite party No. 2 received only Rs. 66,500/ - towards his salary from M/s Xevion which is a sister concern of the company of which the petitioner is the Director and neither was the full amount of salary, nor the amount of annual retainer fee paid to him despite repeated demands and requests. In response to his demands, the petitioner is alleged to have postponed the payment on one pretext or the other. On 16.7.2001 the opposite party No. 2 approached the petitioner again with his request for release of his payments. On being asked to come later when on 19.7.2001 at about 10.30 AM the opposite party No. 2 went to the office of the petitioner, he was prevented by the petitioner from entering into his office and was also assaulted by the persons accompanying the petitioner and the petitioner refused to pay a single farthing to him. Thereafter, opposite party No. 2 lodged a written complaint at the police station, but no action was taken. On the next day i.e. 20.7.2001 the opposite party No. 2 again went to his office, but he was again prevented from entering his office by the some persons at the behest of the petitioner. The opposite party No. 2 thereafter lodged complaint before the Labour Superintendent, Jamshedpur against the petitioner for the payment of his salary but no satisfactory action was taken on his complaint. Finally, after more than three months, the instant complaint was filed before the learned court below.
(3.) ASSAILING the order dated 26.9.2001 whereby summons were ordered to be issued against the petitioner and also the subsequent order dated 20.7.2004 whereby petitioner's prayer for his discharge from the case was refused by the learned court below, Shri T.R. Bajaj, learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the entire proceeding is bad and is based entirely on false allegations, which, even on its face value, do not make out any offence whatsoever against the petitioner. Learned counsel explains that even according to the complainant's own version, he was appointed under a purported agreement dated 30.12.1999, a copy of which has been annexed as annexure -3 to this application. Learned counsel points out that on bare perusal of the agreement, it would indicate that it is a forged and fabricated document, since though it contains two pages, but the letters and print on the first page is totally different from the second page and furthermore, while a clause mentioned in paragraph -1 of the first page claims that the services of the opposite party No. 2 cannot be terminated till he attains the age of 58 years, whereas on the second page, the age of termination have been mentioned as 60 years. It is further pointed out that even as admitted by the opposite party No. 2, he used to receive salary at the rate of Rs. 4,000/ - per month not from the petitioner or from the petitioner's company namely M/s Sparx Technologies (P) Ltd. Rather, he used to receive salary from another company namely, M/s Xevion which is claims to be the sister concern of M/s Sparks Technologies (P) Ltd. Learned counsel explains further that apparently, the opposite party No. 2 was not employed under the petitioner or the petitioner's company and, therefore, the opposite party No. 2 not being an employee of the petitioner, there was no occasion for the petitioner to invite the opposite party No. 2 to his office either on 16.7.2001 or 19.7.2001 for payment of money to him. It is further submitted that from the complain submitted by the opposite party No. 2 at the police station, it would appear that the grievance was only in respect of prevention of the opposite party No. 2 from entering into the office of the petitioner and there is no allegation that the petitioner had indulged in any act of violence against the opposite party No. 2. Yet, in his instant complaint petition, the opposite party No. 2 maintains that he was prevented by the petitioner at the main door of his office along with others and was assaulted. Learned counsel points out that additional allegation of assault is apparently an improvement only to make out a case and as regards the allegation of preventing the complainant from entering into the office, the petitioner had every right to prevent any outsider from entering into his office, since the opposite party No. 2 was not his employee.;