Mohan further alleged that the proceeds from the illicit activities were transferred to accounts belonging to their relatives. (File)
“…this court has no hesitation to hold that the cognizable offence of criminal breach of trust by a servant, punishable u/s. 408 IPC is clearly seen to be committed by the alleged Manu Uniyal and Surender Kumar,” said the court
A New Delhi court recently ordered the Delhi Police to register a First Information Report (FIR) against ex-employees of fashion designer Pallavi Mohan for criminal breach of trust.
Judicial Magistrate First Class Akshay Sharma ordered registration of an FIR over the complaint filed by Mohan, wherein she alleged that her former employees, Manu Uniyal and Surender Kumar, secretly accepted orders from her clients.
The complaint, which also includes allegations of forgery, further stated that the said employees reportedly manufactured high-end garments for women using the ‘Not So Serious’ brand name, design, and materials, diverting payments to their own accounts and those of their family members and associated companies, including Kalpana Uniyal and Manusmriti Ayurveda Pvt. Ltd.
Mohan further alleged that the proceeds from the illicit activities were transferred to accounts belonging to their relatives, including Gunja Devi, Kumudh Kumari, Nand Kishore, Rachit Uniyal and Shashank Raturi.
The alleged offences fall under sections 408 (criminal breach of trust), 420 (cheating), and 120B (criminal conspiracy) of the Indian Penal Code.
Mohan alleged that despite her initial complaint to the Delhi Police, no FIR was registered, following which, she filed a petition under section 156(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code through her advocates, Sumit Gehlot and Nikhil Bhalla of Fidelegal Advocates & Solicitors.
“…this court has no hesitation to hold that the cognizable offence of criminal breach of trust by a servant, punishable u/s. 408 IPC is clearly seen to be committed by the alleged Manu Uniyal and Surender Kumar,” said the court.
It further directed that proper field investigation is required as the vendors and the buyers require to be examined. The court has sought a status report during the next hearing on October 18.
