Danendra Dev Sharma vs. State Of U.P. And Another

Held

The Court held that the application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. was not maintainable. The Court found that there was an angle of financial fraud and criminal breach of trust, in addition to cheating, involved in the case. The Court reasoned that the grounds for quashing proceedings as laid down in the case of State of Haryana and Others vs. Chaudhary Bhajan Lal and Others, 1992 Supplementary (1) SCC 335, and P. Chidambaram Vs. Directorate of Enforcement, AIR 2020 SC 1699, were not made out. The Court was satisfied that a prima facie case existed for proceeding against the accused under the charged sections. Therefore, the application was dismissed.

Facts

The applicant, Danendra Dev Sharma, filed an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking to quash summoning and proceedings arising from a chargesheet. The chargesheet, filed in Case No. 14508 of 2020, relates to Case Crime No. 454 of 2018 under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 408 IPC, registered at Police Station Hari Parwat, District Agra. The applicant was employed as a Senior Area Sales Manager by NILON's Enterprises Private Limited. The prosecution alleged that while in service, the applicant established a parallel business, M/s Divyam Services, in the same field, requisitioning material at his own address and marketing it, causing loss to his employer and engaging in tax avoidance. The applicant contended that his only fault was supplementing his income by obtaining a GST number and selling his own products, and that the ingredients of the IPC sections were not made out. The State argued that the applicant defrauded the company and engaged in tax theft, and that he admitted guilt during an inquiry.

Key Issues

1. Whether the proceedings arising from the chargesheet under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 408 IPC are liable to be quashed on the ground that the ingredients of the said offences are not made out, as argued by the applicant? 2. Whether the applicant's act of obtaining a GST number and selling his own products while employed as a Senior Area Sales Manager, and allegedly establishing a parallel business, constitutes cheating, criminal breach of trust, and forgery, as argued by the State? The applicant argued that the FIR and witness statements do not establish the ingredients of the alleged offences. He claimed his only fault was supplementing his income by obtaining a GST number and selling his products, and that his employment offer letter did not debar him from personal business. The State contended that the applicant defrauded his employer by establishing a parallel business in the same field, causing financial loss and engaging in tax avoidance/theft. They further argued that the applicant admitted his guilt during an inquiry, acknowledging the establishment of a parallel firm, Divyam Services, which demonstrated the prima facie commission of the offences. The State also submitted that at the stage of cognizance, the court only needs to be satisfied of a prima facie case.