1. Ramjee Prasad Gupta @ Ramjee Prasad 2. Sandeep Kumar v. …
Case Details
1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr.M.P. No. 2722 of 2014 1. Ramjee Prasad Gupta @ Ramjee Prasad 2. Sandeep Kumar Versus ….… Petitioner 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Bhagwan Das Gupta …… Opp. Parties
Legal Reasoning
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI --------- For the Petitioners : Mr. A.K. Chaturvedi, Advocate For the State : Mr. Fahad Alam, A.P.P. For the O.P. No.2 : Mr. Arun Kumar, Advocate 9/Dated: 12/05/2023 Heard Mr. A.K. Chaturvedi, learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Fahad Alam, learned counsel for the State and Mr. Arun Kumar, learned counsel for the O.P. No.2. 2. This petition has been filed for quashing the entire criminal proceeding including order taking cognizance dated 20.09.2014 in connection with Complaint Case No. 185 of 2013, pending in the Court of learned C.J.M, Gumla. 3. Complaint petition has filed alleging therein that in Gumla the tenure of President, Secretary, cashier of members of Rauniar Vaishya Samaj is for two years and after expiry of period of two years all the members and office bearers of samaj in presence of respectable members a meeting is being called and thereafter giving the details about the expenditure and income they announce for the new election but the accused persons who were elected as President and secretary on 16.09.2011 continued on their part till 1.12.2011 and they declares the election without the consent of cashier and other members and after conducting the election they handed over the charge to the elected President and Secretary on 2.12.2011. No paper, information was given to the members of Rauniar Vaishya Samaj and they got the election conducted 2 as per their own will. The informant has also stated that they continued on the part for four years and they did not give the details about income and expenditure and also they did not give information to the members and as such they did the expenditure as per their own will and also they did not give the details of expenditure and income of their tenure to the members and they also did not deposit the amount in Bank and also they did not produce the passbook. It was further alleged that a school is being run by Rauniar Samaj in the name of Rauniar Bal Mandir and also there is income of Samaj by shops. It was further alleged that after election of 2007 the responsibility of construction of Mandir and Puja Bhandara were given to Ramjee Prasad Gupta. A sum of Rs. 6,25,706/- has been collected as donation and further a sum of Rs. 1,81,371/- towards Puja Bhandara and also there was booking of Dharamsala for 196 times but in the Register it is mentioned only 102 times. The accused persons have thus misappropriated the money of their samaj and they have not given the details of the expenditure. Earlier Advocate notice was given to accused persons and also to cashier but he had gone to Bengaluru for treatment and as such he has not been made accused in this case. The accused persons despite the notice have not given the details. 4. Mr. A.K. Chaturvedy, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that initially F.I.R. was lodged which was sent under section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. before the concerned police station and after investigation police submitted final form in which petitioners have not been sent up for trial and further recommendation was made for prosecution under section 182/211 of I.P.C.. He submits that final form was accepted and on the protest petition learned court has taken cognizance which is against the mandate of law. He submits that bald allegation is there for defalcation of money. 5. On the other hand, Mr. Arun Kumar, learned counsel for the O.P. 3 No. 2 submits that there are allegation with regard to defalcation of money. He submits that straightway police has submitted final form however, the learned court by dealing with elaborately has taken cognizance in which reason has been assigned what are the materials against the petitioners. He submits that at this stage entire criminal proceeding may not be quashed. 6. In view of above submissions of the learned counsel for the parties the court has gone through the contents of complaint petition and finds that there is allegation against the petitioners that a sum of Rs. 6,25,706/- has been collected as donation and further a sum of Rs. 1,81,371 towards Puja Bhandara which was not deposited by the petitioners. There is no doubt that once the final form is submitted, the learned Magistrate is having four options:- (1) He may agree with the conclusion of the police and accept the final report and drop the proceeding. (2) He may take cognizance under Section 190(1)(b) CrPC and issue process straightaway to the accused without being bound by the conclusion of the investigating agency where he is satisfied that upon the facts discovered by the police, there is sufficient ground to proceed. (3) He may order for further investigation if he is satisfied that the investigation was made in a perfunctory manner. (4) He may without issuing process and dropping the proceedings under Section 190(1)(a) CrPC upon the original complaint or protest petition treating the same as complaint and proceed to act under Sections 200 and 202 CrPC and thereafter whether complaint should be dismissed or process should be issued. 7. The learned Magistrate has chosen option no.4 and he called upon the O.P. No.2 to file protest petition thereafter protest petition was filed and on the basis of materials and enquiry witnesses the learned court has taken 4 cognizance assigning reason of defalcation of money by the petitioners. In that order it has also been recorded that O.P. No.2 has been noticed and thereafter he has filed protest petition. The Court finds that there is no illegality in the order taking cognizance. 8. Accordingly, this petition is dismissed. Further the learned trial court will proceed in accordance with law without being prejudiced by this order. 9.
Decision
Pending I.A., if any, stands disposed of. Interim order is vacated. Satyarthi/ (Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.)