Devendra Kumar Das v. State of Jharkhand & Anr
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. M.P. No. 171 of 2010 With Cr. M.P. No. 166 of 2010 Devendra Kumar Das..... .............Petitioner (Cr.M.P. No. 171 of 10) Satya Narayan Prasad @ Satnarain Prasad...Petitioner (Cr.M.P. No. 166/10) Versus State of Jharkhand & Anr………… …… Opp. Parties (In both cases) Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice R.R.Prasad For the Petitioners For the State
Legal Reasoning
…… : Mr. R.S.Mazumdar, Sr.Advocate : M/s. D.K.Chakraberty, M.B.Lal, APP ....... 6./26.02.2013 From the office note it does appear that in spite of notice being served upon O.P. No.2, he did not chose to appear in this case. Accordingly, heard the matter on its merit. Since, both the matters arise out of the same cases, both were
Decision
heard together and are being disposed of by the common order. The aforesaid two applications have been filed on behalf of the petitioners for quashing of the entire criminal proceeding of C.P. Case No. 30 of 2009, including the order dated 05/08/2009, whereby and whereunder the then S.D.J.M., Dhanbad, took cognizance of the offences punishable under Sections 420, 406, 409 and 120 B of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioners and others. The case of the prosecution as it appears from the complaint petition is that the accused Satrughan Singh and Suraj Paswan took signature of the complainant on blank piece of papers on the pretext that they will get the loan sanctioned from the Provident Fund account so that she may utilize it in the marriage of her daughter. Accused no. 3 Nandjit Singh also impressed upon the complainant to accept their proposal for which they will be charging commission of 15%. Thereafter, accused nos. 1 and 2, got an account opened in the Union Bank of India. But, they did not hand over the Pass Book to the complainant. When the money was not given to the complainant in spite of passing off so many days, the complainant raised grievance before the accused nos. 1 and 2. Upon it, a sum of Rs. 10,000/- was paid to her. Thereupon, those two accused persons again took signature of the complainant over certain documents. But, when payment was not made, the complainant put pressure upon accused nos. 1 and 2 to give money, but it was not paid. Thereupon, the complainant approached to the Provident Fund office where Dealing Clerk Satya Narayan Prasad (petitioner in Cr. M.P. No. 166/2010) did not give her correct information. However, with the help of Provident Fund Commissioner, it could be known that on 07/12/2005 and on 19/07/2007, two cheques each for a sum of Rs. 78,000/- have been transferred to the Union Bank of India in the account of the complainant, but she was never informed about it by the Provident Fund office. Thereupon, on enquiry being made from the Bank, it could be known that a cheque of Rs. 78,800/- had been deposited in her account and from her account a sum of Rs. 77,500/- had been withdrawn on 26/12/2005 by accused no. 1. On such allegation, complaint was lodged not only against accused nos. 1 to 3 but also against the Commissioner, Dealing Clerk of the C.M.P.F. and also against Branch Manager and Dealing Clerk of Union Bank of India. Upon such complaint, cognizance of the offences as aforesaid was taken against the accused persons including Dealing Clerk Devendra Kumar Das as well as Satya Narayan Prasad, Dealing Assistant, vide order dated 05/08/2009. Being aggrieved of that, these two applications have been filed. Mr. R.S.Mazumdar, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that petitioner Devendra Kumar Das had never been posted as Dealing Clerk at Mudidih Branch of the Office of the Regional Commissioner, Coal Mines Provident Fund, Region-D-II, Dhanbad, rather he was posted over there on 21st August 2008 vide Office Order No. 21/2008, which has been annexed as Annexure-2 and, therefore, in the event that when the petitioner Devendra Kumar Das had never been posted there at Mudidih Provident Fund Office from 12/09/2005 till December 2007, question of committing offence by him never arise and thereby the Court has committed illegality in taking cognizance against him. Learned counsel further submits that so far as petitioner Satya Narayan Prasad is concerned, he happened to be a Dealing Assistant in the said office but he had never been made accused by name, still cognizance of the offence has been taken presumably for the reason that he had forwarded the documents relating to transaction to his higher officers, which itself does not make out any offence under which the cognizance has been taken. Learned counsel further submits that the document upon which the reliance is being placed on behalf of the petitioners appears to be unimpeachable in character and it can be looked into at this stage in view of the decision rendered in a case of “State of Orissa- versus- Debendra Nath Padhi {(2005) 1 SCC 568}”, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has been pleased to held that in exercise of power under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure the Court can put his reliance on the document which is sterling in character. Thus, it was submitted that the order taking cognizance is fit to be quashed so far as these two petitioners are concerned. As against this, learned counsel appearing for the State submits that the main allegation seems to be upon accused nos. 1 to 3, who, seems to have defrauded the complainant. But at the same time, these two petitioners have also been made accused as the amount was released from the provident fund office to be deposited in the Union Bank of India from where the amount was withdrawn by the main accused Satrughan Singh. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, it does appear that the allegation regarding cheating and misappropriation centers around accused nos. 1 to 3. But at the same time, Devendra Kumar Das, a Dealing Clerk has also been made accused, though there has been no allegation of committing any overt act in the commission of the offence as alleged, for the reason that the amount had been released from the Provident Fund office, where this petitioner Devendra Kumar Das was a Dealing Clerk. But, at the relevant point of time, i.e. from 12/09/2005 till December 2007, this petitioner had never been posted as Dealing Clerk at Mudidih Branch of the Office, which would be evident from Annexure-2, which is an office order relating to reallocation of the duty, which shows that the petitioner had been posted at Mudidih Branch on 21st August 2008. In such situation, there could not be any hand of this petitioner in the alleged commission of the offence. So far as the petitioner Satya Narayan Prasad is concerned, he, at the relevant point of time, was posted as Dealing Assistant but there has been absolutely no allegation against him showing his hand in any manner in the alleged offence. Still the Court has taken cognizance against him and, thereby, the Court has certainly committed illegality in taking cognizance against him. Accordingly, entire criminal proceeding including the order dated 05/08/2009, under which cognizance of the offence has been taken against these two petitioners, is hereby quashed. In the result, both these applications stand allowed. Mukund/- (R.R.Prasad, J)