Amit Kumar Das … v. … … Opp. Parties
Case Details
1 Cr. Revision No. 89 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Revision No. 89 of 2022 ------ Amit Kumar Das … ... Petitioner The State of Jharkhand 1. 2. Digambar Saha Versus … … Opp. Parties --------
Legal Reasoning
has rightly found that the prima facie case is made out u/ss. 406 and 420 of IPC against the petitioner on the basis of sufficient material available on record. Therefore, the discharge petition of the petitioner filed u/ss. 439 of Cr.P.C. has rightly been rejected by the learned court below in the light of well settled principle of law that at this stage of framing of charge the Court is not supposed to go into the nicety and details of the evidences adduced on behalf of the prosecution and prima facie allegation are to be appreciated. In this view of the matter, this criminal revision application is dismissed being devoid of merit. It goes without saying that the learned court below will not be prejudiced from this order and further criminal proceeding will go strictly on merit of this case. MM (Navneet Kumar, J.)
Arguments
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVNEET KUMAR For the Petitioner For the State For the O.P. No. 2 -------- : Mr. Zaid Ahmad, Advocate : : Mrs. Kumari Rashmi, Addl.P.P. Mr. Sunil Kumar Mahto, Advocate -------- Order No. 07: Dated: 14th March, 2023 Heard the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the parties. That the present criminal revision is directed against the judgment and order dated 03.12.2021 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Pakur in M.C.A. No. 188 of 2021 corresponding to G.R. No. 624 of 2017 arising out of Hiranpur P.S. Case No. 80 of 2017 whereby the application preferred by this petitioner u/s 239 of Cr.P.C. for discharge, has been rejected. The prosecution case as set out in the FIR by the informant O.P. No. 2 against the petitioner is that the petitioner had taken huge amount from different persons including the O.P. No. 2 the informant Digambar Saha along with the other victims namely Parsuram Shah, Byasmuni Bhagat, Haripad Mandal, Sapan Kumar Saha, Om Prakash Saha, Tushar Kanti Sarkar, Ajit Thakur and Ram Singh Murmu fraudulently and dishonestly in order to commit forgery for the purpose of cheating. It has also been alleged that the loan amount given by the victims were demanded by them from the accused petitioner and he had given the cheques of different banks to them which was dishonored either due to insufficient amount or due to stop payment. It has also been alleged that the petitioner had executed two agreements in favour of Aasmaara Khatoon and 2 Cr. Revision No. 89 of 2022 Digambar Saha (O.P. No. 2) showing that the he has taken Rs. 50,000/- and Rs. 2,60,000/- respectively from them and promised to return the same within the stipulated time and mentioned the same in the said agreements but neither the amount was returned to the victims nor any further commitment has been made for the return of the amount. The alleged amount taken by the petitioner under the pretext and manner in various ways including the payment of labours under the MGNREGA scheme 02 or for purchasing of motorcycle or for pond repairing or for construction of roads etc. establishing the fact that the petitioner has been habitual fraudster. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the entire allegations as set out in the FIR were civil in nature which is related to the payment or non-payment of the amount which is taken from the various persons and therefore no criminal offence is made out. It has further been submitted that the entire allegations as made out by the informant O.P. No. 2 are vague in nature that a sum of Rs. 2,60,000/- was taken from him but he has neither stated as to when and under what circumstances he had given a loan of Rs. 2,60,000/- to the petitioner and even if the entire allegations are accepted as it proved, that it is a case of enforcement of the agreement and the recovery of the loan amount and no criminal offence is made out and therefore, the impugned order by which the discharge petition filed by the petitioner was rejected by the learned court below is bad in law and fit to be set aside. On the other hand, the learned Addl.P.P. appearing on behalf of the State and the learned counsel appearing for the O.P. No. 2 vehemently opposed the contentions raised on behalf of the petitioner and submitted that there are ample materials available in the case diary by which it is found on the face of it that it is a case of criminal breach of trust and cheating within the meaning of sections 406 and 420 of IPC and there is no illegality in the impugned order 3 Cr. Revision No. 89 of 2022 and this criminal revision application is fit to be dismissed being devoid of merit. It has been pointed out that there are ample evidences against this petitioner as evident from para, 2, 38, 39,40,41, 42, 43, 44 and 45 of the case diary. The statement of the account number 20073429593 and 32248852139 stands in the name of the accused petitioner as well as photocopies of the agreement collected during the course of investigation are ample proof of the criminal wrong committed by the petitioner for the offence punishable u/s 406 and 420 of IPC. Having heard the parties, perused the record of this case. It is found that the petitioner has been made accused for the offence punishable u/s 406 and 420 of IPC alleging therein that the accused petitioner has taken amount under the pretext of various fraudulent and dishonest modes as set out in the FIR from the O.P. No. 2-Digamber Saha (informant) including Parsuram Shah, Byasmuni Bhagat, Haripad Mandal, Sapan Kumar Saha, Om Prakash Saha, Tushar Kanti Sarkar, Ajit Thakur and Ram Singh Murmu. It has been found that the statement of the witnesses have been recorded during the course of the investigation as evident from para 2, 38, 39,40,41, 42, 43, 44 and 45 of the case diary and they all have consistently and uniformly supported the case of the prosecution. The learned court below has rightly appreciated the evidences collected during the course of the investigation and passed the impugned order. It is also found that when the amount was taken under the pre-text of various fraudulent ways by the petitioner and further the cheques issued by the petitioners in favour of all the aforesaid victims were dishonoured either due to insufficient amount or due stop the payment and to that effect the certificates of the concerned Branch Manager is also found in the case diary as evident from aforesaid paras of CD and there is an agreement for 4 Cr. Revision No. 89 of 2022 the return of the amount executed by the petitioner to Aasmaara Khatoon and Digambar Saha indicating that he had taken a sum of Rs 50,000/- and Rs. 2,60,000/- respectively and he had promised to return the same within the stipulated period of time. It has also been pointed out from the case diary that this petitioner is a notorious criminal engaged in committing fraud and cheating of such nature and there is a criminal history against the petitioner as evident from para 135 of the case diary in which he has been made accused in connection with Hiranpur P.S. Case No. 23 of 2016. In the backdrop, it is found that there are ample incriminating materials against the petitioner for dishonest and fraudulent act of the petitioner for committing the alleged offence including the documentary evidences on the face of it and the learned court below