INTRODUCTION

A criminal revision petition contesting the trial court’s decision to charge the petitioner under Section 120B (criminal conspiracy) and Section 408 (criminal breach of trust) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) is at issue in the Krishna Mohan v. State case, which the Delhi District Court decided on January 6, 2011. As a lawyer by trade, the petitioner, Krishna Mohan, was charged with financial fraud concerning two checks that his co-accused, Rekha, an office manager for the complainant’s firm, stole.

While her husband, who oversaw the company’s operations, was away from the office, the complainant, a businesswoman, had left signed blank checks in her office drawer. In October 2003, Rekha, who was tasked with office duties, allegedly stole two signed checks and transferred Rs. 45,000 and Rs. 50,000 to her personal account. In November 2003, the complainant submitted a complaint, which was subsequently turned into a formal complaint. Despite the fact that the complainant’s husband had signed the checks, it was found throughout the investigation that the petitioner, Krishna Mohan, had entered the names and amounts on the disputed checks. Consequently, Rekha and Krishna Mohan were charged with criminal conspiracy (Section 120B IPC) and criminal breach of trust (Section 408 IPC).

Krishna Mohan argued that he was unfairly accused in the case in his revision petition. He maintained that his only responsibility was to do the checks at the complainant’s husband’s request, as he had given them to him in order to resolve a different conflict involving Rekha. The petitioner additionally asserted that the lawsuit was a response to the continuing labor dispute between Rekha and the complainant and that there was no evidence that he knew of Rekha’s intention to embezzle the money. He added that the unlikely nature of the charges and the delay in initiating the lawsuit suggested malafides.

In its ruling, the Delhi District Court analyzed the case extensively. It concluded that there was insufficient evidence to bring charges against Krishna Mohan under Section 120B IPC because the prosecution had not proven that he was aware of Rekha’s purported embezzlement. As a result, the court dismissed the trial court’s ruling, granted the revision petition, and released the petitioner from the charges. This case emphasizes how important it is to consider the preliminary evidence before laying out charges in order to make sure they are not predicated on speculative or ill-founded grounds.

FACTS OF THE CASE

One of the petitioner’s co-accused, Ms. Rekha, was employed as an office manager at the complainant’s company. The complainant’s spouse was responsible for the firm’s operations and had to leave the office. In order to meet urgent needs, he would, therefore, frequently leave blank, signed checks in the table drawer. Ms. Rekha was preparing the checks as she handled the office job. Since October 13, 2003, Ms. Rekha has stopped going to work without telling anyone. She also stole two checks signed by the complainant’s husband, which she used to transfer Rs. 45,000 and Rs. 50,000 to her personal account on October 20 and 23, 2003. Thus, on November 25, 2003, the current complaint was submitted.

ISSUES RAISED

• Whether there is enough evidence to establish a case against the accused?

ARGUMENTS FROM BOTH SIDES

Arguments on behalf of the petitioner

• It is argued on the petitioner’s behalf that he was improperly involved in this case. It is argued that the petitioner has no personal involvement in the case other than serving as co-accused Rekha’s advocate and pursuing the industrial dispute that Ms. Rekha had brought up in order to recover her alleged debts and be reinstated as a complainant employee. It is argued that the trades did not benefit him. 
• Additionally, it is argued that the entire case is a counterblast to the industrial conflict and the molestation charge that co-accused Rekha lodged against the complainant’s spouse. 
• Additionally, it is argued that the lawsuit is founded on extremely unlikely claims and that no one would leave signed blank checks in his drawer unattended. 
• Additionally, it is argued that the delay in bringing the complaint demonstrated the complainant’s malfeasance. 
• Additionally, the letter dated May 9, 2005, that the petitioner sent to the Commissioner of Police alleging harassment would demonstrate that the complainant’s husband visited the petitioner’s court chamber at Tis Hazari Courts with Rajesh Jain to resolve the conflict between management and Ms. Rekha. In order to do so, the complainant’s husband gave the petitioner two checks, on which the petitioner wrote the complainant’s name and amount at his request to pay the amount.

Arguments on behalf of the respondent

• The complaint was turned into a formal complaint. Investigations showed that the petitioner had filled out the aforementioned checks. As a result, a charge sheet was filed against the petitioner under section 120 B IPC and against the co-accused Rekha under section 408 IPC.
• The Ld. Addl PP cited the petitioner’s letter to the Commissioner of Police dated 09.05.2005 :4:, in which he acknowledged that the counsel’s handwriting was used to write the name and amount on the aforementioned checks. He also cited the ruling dated July 12, 2005, which granted the petitioner anticipatory bail and acknowledged that the petitioner had completed the checks.

JUDGMENT

Assuming for the purposes of argument that the current petitioner writes the checks, the prosecution must demonstrate, at least on the surface, that the petitioner knew that Ms. Rekha was stealing the checks when he filled in the names and amounts on them. The charging sheet contains no such accusation. The petitioner’s awareness of the claim of check theft by co-accused Rekha is unsupported by any evidence. It is not enough to assume that the petitioner should be presumed to have known that Ms. Rekha was embezzling the checks, as the prosecution does, only because he was her advocate and knew about the conflict between Ms. Rekha and her employer. It is acknowledged that the complainant’s husband signed the checks, and his five fellow employees, Rajesh Jain, wrote the “Account Payee” endorsement on them. There is no case against the current petitioner under section 120 B IPC read with section 408 IPC in such circumstances. As a result, the ruling dated 19.09.2009 that framed charges against the petitioner under section 120 B IPC is revoked. In light of this, the petitioner is released. As a result, the revision petition is granted. 

CONCLUSION

The main legal concern in this case was how to frame charges under Indian Penal Code (IPC) Sections 120B (criminal conspiracy) and 408 (criminal breach of trust). Criminal conspiracy, which is defined as an agreement between two or more people to commit a crime, is covered by Section 120B IPC. The prosecution must show that the accused and the defendant had an agreement to commit a crime in order for a charge under this provision to be legitimate. When someone entrusted with something dishonestly misappropriates or converts it for their personal use, it is considered a criminal breach of trust by an employee or agent, as defined by Section 408 IPC.

To decide whether there was a prima facie case against the petitioner in this instance, the court concentrated on the prosecution’s evidence. The petitioner’s primary contribution to the transaction was to complete the checks at the complainant’s husband’s request, which by itself did not amount to any criminal activity. The prosecution’s argument was unable to prove that the petitioner knew about the purported misappropriation or that he and Rekha planned to steal the money. The prosecution under Section 120B IPC was unsupportable since there was no proof that the petitioner knew they were involved in the act. Furthermore, the court emphasized that the petitioner did not necessarily know that Rekha intended to misuse the checks only because they were aware of the industrial disagreement between Rekha and the complainant.

The court also considered the complaint’s late filing, which raised the possibility that the case was started in response to the ongoing conflict rather than as a genuine allegation of fraud. Since it was not demonstrated that he had any hidden agenda in helping Rekha or that he profited from the transactions, the petitioner’s claim that the checks were given to him during the dispute further undermined the case against him.

After carefully examining the prosecution’s case, the Delhi District Court determined that there was insufficient information to file charges against the petitioner under Section 120B IPC. Additionally, insufficient evidence supported the Section 408 IPC claim that the petitioner had engaged in a criminal breach of trust. The court underlined the importance of ensuring that charges are supported by reliable evidence rather than just conjecture or baseless accusations. The decision emphasized that criminal conspiracy cannot be assumed based only on hazy relationships between the participants without concrete proof of a criminal conspiracy agreement. As a result, the petitioner’s accusations were dropped, and the revision petition was granted. In order to prevent people from being falsely accused in criminal proceedings, the legal system must carefully consider whether there is enough evidence before permitting a charge to go to trial. This case serves as a crucial reminder of this requirement.