ASOKE BASAK versus STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS.

ASOKE BASAK versus STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS.

Complaint does not disclose specific averment of entrustment, dominion or misappropriation by appellant; ingredients of criminal breach of trust under Sections 405/409 IPC not satisfied; no evidence of prior concert or planning among accused to misappropriate funds to attract Section 34 IPC; complaint against appellant is not maintainable and to be quashed under Section 482 CrPC.

Parties
Appellant: Asoke Basak; Respondent: State of Maharashtra; Complainant/respondent No.2: M/s Datar Switchgear Ltd.; Senior Official of Respondent No.2: Respondent No.3; Senior Official of Respondent No.2: Respondent No.4; Proforma Respondent No.5/co Accused: Mr. Krishna Rao
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
08 October 2010
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Supreme Court Appeal From High Court Refusal to Quash Complaint
Outcome
Appeal allowed; complaint quashed against appellant
Legal Topics
Quashing Criminal Complaint, Criminal Breach of Trust, Vicarious Liability, Scope of Section 482 Cr PC, Common Intention Under Section 34 IPC
Criminal Law Quashing Criminal Complaint Criminal Breach of Trust Vicarious Liability Scope of Section 482 Cr PC Common Intention Under Section 34 IPC

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 26 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Asoke Basak

Appellant

State of Maharashtra

Respondent

M/s Datar Switchgear Ltd.

Complainant/respondent No.2

Respondent No.3

Senior Official of Respondent No.2

Respondent No.4

Senior Official of Respondent No.2

Mr. Krishna Rao

Proforma Respondent No.5/co Accused

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Supreme Court Appeal From High Court Refusal to Quash Complaint

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether non-refund and adjustment of Rs. 5 lakhs security deposit constitutes criminal breach of trust under IPC
  2. 2 Whether Chairman of MSEB and officials can be prosecuted for breach of trust and liable under Section 34 IPC
  3. 3 Whether complaint discloses prima facie offence justifying criminal proceedings

Ratio Decidendi

Complaint does not disclose specific averment of entrustment, dominion or misappropriation by appellant; ingredients of criminal breach of trust under Sections 405/409 IPC not satisfied; no evidence of prior concert or planning among accused to misappropriate funds to attract Section 34 IPC; complaint against appellant is not maintainable and to be quashed under Section 482 CrPC.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; complaint quashed against appellant

Orders

  • The impugned order of High Court refusing to quash complaint is set aside.
  • The order of Magistrate taking cognizance against the appellant in Complaint No.1881 of 2004 is quashed.