# Dr. B. Sahu v. State of U.P. and others

- **Citation:** (2011) 2 ILRA 537
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2011-05-19
- **Case number:** Criminal Misc. Case No. 3994 of 2007
- **Bench:** Shri Narayan Shukla
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/dr-b-sahu-v-state-of-u-p-and-others-41917
- **Pages:** 2

## Text

2 All] Dr. B. Sahu V. State of U.P. and others
537
instance it shall be paid by respondent
No.1 along with arrears of family pension,
as directed above, but respondent No.1
shall have liberty to recover cost as well
as amount of interest paid to the petitioner
under this order(s) from the official
concerned, who is/are found responsible
for such extra ordinary delay in payment
of aforesaid dues, after making enquiry in
accordance with law.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 19.05.2011

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE SHRI NARAYAN SHUKLA,J.

Criminal Misc. Case No. 3994 of 2007
(U/S 482, Cr.P.C.)

Dr. B. Sahu

 ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. and others ...Respondents

Code of Criminal Procedure, Section 482Quashing of complaint case-allegation
disclosed that certain employees were
selected but not given appointment
letter-as some of them stolen secret
formula and using the same for the
benefits of another company-at the most
it can be violation of Patent Act or
Copyright
Act-can
be
properly
adjudicated
by
Civil
Court-complaint
quashed

Held: Para 4

Upon perusal of the record, I find that
there is allegation to disclose the secrecy
of the respondent company as well as
stealing of some secret formulas, which
are used by the respondent company by
the selected candidates, in which the
petitioner is alleged to be conspired with
them, whereas I am of the view that
such allegation is the subject matter of
civil suit. If there is a violation of Patent
Act or Copyright Act, it is open for the
respondent to take necessary action
therein,
but
once
the
respondentcompany's
employees
were
selected
through the open recruitment by the
petitioner, it cannot be said that he has
committed any fraud, as alleged.
Case law discussed:
A.I.R. 1955 Patna 288 (Vol. 42, C.N. 52)

(Delivered by Hon'ble S.N. Shukla,J.)

1. Heard Mr. Sunil Kumar Shukla,
learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr.
Kunwar Mridul Rakesh, learned senior
Advocate for the respondent no. 2 as well
as learned A.G.A.

2. The petitioner has challenged the
complaint registered as complaint case no.
4984 of 2006 as well as the order passed
therein on 25th of January, 2007. The
petitioner is an Executive Director and
President of Futura Polyesters Limited.
He recruited some Laboratory Assistant.
Under the process of recruitment, six
persons were interviewed out of whom
four candidates namely Mr. Raghvendra
Singh, Dr. Ajit Singh, Mr. Ashish
Srivastava and Mr. Jay Shukla were
selected. It appears that some of the
employee of the respondent company has
been selected in the petitioner's company.
The petitioner denies from any such
agreement as is entered between those
selected candidates and respondent. It is
further stated that if there is a violation of
any agreement, that is the subject matter
of civil dispute, but for that, the petitioner
cannot be prosecuted. He also informs
that respondent company had filed a civil
suit for recovery of money against its
employees i.e. Civil Suit No. 711 of 2006
and Civil Suit No. 713 of 2006. The
respondent company alleges that those
selected candidates have stolen the secrets
formula from its Company. It is also the
538 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2011
allegation that the petitioner is using the
formula of the respondent company for
his benefit to cause loss to the respondent
company's business. The petitioner is
alleged to have conspired along with other
accused.

3. In reply, it is stated by the
petitioner that if the allegation leveled
against
the
petitioner
is
accepted
maximum, the case may be of the
violation of Patent Act or Copyright Act,
but not to steal any secret documents or
information. Therefore, the complaint as
well as the summoning order passed
therein deserves to be quashed. In support
of his submission, he also cited a decision
rendered in the case of Amarnath Bihari
v. Uma Shanker reported in A.I.R.
1955 Patna 288(Vol. 42, C.N.52), in
which it has been held that whether the
contract dealing with the assignment of
the copyrights has or has not been in fact
infringed will be the subject matter of
discussion in a civil suit properly
constituted for that and is not relevant to
the decision of criminal case on a charge
under Section 489 of the Indian Penal
Code.

4. Upon perusal of the record, I find
that there is allegation to disclose the
secrecy of the respondent company as
well as stealing of some secret formulas,
which are used by the respondent
company by the selected candidates, in
which the petitioner is alleged to be
conspired with them, whereas I am of the
view that such allegation is the subject
matter of civil suit. If there is a violation
of Patent Act or Copyright Act, it is open
for the respondent to take necessary
action therein, but once the respondentcompany's
employees
were
selected
through the open recruitment by the
petitioner, it cannot be said that he has
committed any fraud, as alleged.

5. Therefore, I hereby quash the
complaint case no. 4984 of 2006 as well
as the order passed therein on 25th of
January, 2007 pending before the Judicial
Magistrate 1st Lucknow.

The petition is allowed.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 05.05.2011

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE RAJIV SHARMA, J.

Writ Petition No. 4011 (M/S) of 2010

Ram Kripal Yadav

 ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. and others ...Respondents

(A) Constitution of India, Article 226maintainability-cancellation
of
the
licence of Fair Price Shop-whether can
Writ
Court
empowered
to
judicial
review?-held-"yes"-Fair Price Shop being
a creation of statutory provision for
Public Distribution System-can not be
taken
lightly-without
following
Principles of Natural Justice without
supplying
the
copy
of
preliminary
enquiry report-being basis of impugned
cancellations.

Held: Para 8,10,11,13 and 16

From the legal proposition reproduced
herein above, it is evident that there is
no blanket ban in entertaining the writ
petitions. It is true that ordinarily the
remedy for breach of contract is a suit
for damages or for specific performance
and not a writ petition under Article 226
of the Constitution. However, where the
contractual dispute has a public law
element, the power of judicial review
under Article 226 may be invoked. In