1. Umesh Sakuja @ Umesh Shakuja 2. Om Prakash Inani v. 1. The State of Jharkhand. 2. Devendra Kumar Jha
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr.M.P. No. 565 of 2017 1. Umesh Sakuja @ Umesh Shakuja 2. Om Prakash Inani Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand. 2. Devendra Kumar Jha -------- ..... … Petitioners ..... … Opposite Parties
Legal Reasoning
CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI ------ : : ------ 03/ 24.06.2024 Notice upon the O.P. No. 2 has been effected, however, till Mr. Abhishek Kumar Dubey, Advocate. Mr. Rajesh Kumar, A.P.P. For the Petitioners For the State date, appearance has not been made on his behalf, which suggests that the O.P. No. 2 is not interested in the matter, as such, this petition is being heard on merits in absence of O.P. No. 2. 2. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and learned A.P.P. for the State. 3. Prayer in this petition is made for quashing of the entire criminal proceeding including the order taking cognizance dated 22.08.2016, by which, cognizance for the offence under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code has been taken against the petitioners, in connection with C/1 Case No. 2858 of 2015, pending in the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jamshedpur. 4. The complaint case was filed alleging therein that co- accused Rajendra Kumar Pradhan runs a travel agency in the name and style of Shrestha Holidays and Kailash Mansoravar Yatra Pvt. Limited and he proposed to have a tour of Mansarovar Yatra in the year 2013-14 for a cost of Rs. 69,000/- which was paid by the complainant and for which a receipt was also received by the complainant. It has been stated that all of sudden the co-accused Rajendra Kumar Singh expressed his inability to conduct the tour and assured the petitioners and complainant to conduct the tour for him next year along with others upon which the complainant was handed over a cheque of Rs. 69,000/- dated 30.12.2014 of ICICI bank, Lajpat Nagar, Delhi branch which got bounced due to insufficient fund. It has further been stated that upon -1- such an event the complainant sent a legal dated 12.01.2015 and also filed a joint petition against the co-accused Rajendra Kumar Singh on 29.04.2015 at Malviya Nagar, New Delhi P.S. through his representative i.e., the present petitioners It has also been stated that thereafter a compromise was held between the accused Rajendra Kumar Singh and the petitioners on behalf of the petitioner and other co travellers. It has been stated that thereafter the complainant was told by the Accused No.1 to either take him on tour or return his amount. It has further been stated that complainant was eagerly waiting for the tour. However, he was not taken for the tour and even the amount was not refunded to the complainant. It has also been stated that petitioners told the complainant that they shall visit the accused Rajendra Kumar Pradhan and negotiate for refund of the amount. However, the complainant did not receive the amount and in the mean time petitioner along with others also completed his journey of Mansarovar Yatra. It has been alleged that when the complainant again approached the co- accused Rajendra Kumar Singh, it was flatly refused by him to pay the amount and the petitioners stated that they have no time for such petty matter. On the basis of these allegations the complaint was lodged against 3 persons including the present petitioners. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are quite innocent and have not committed any offence even then they have been made accused in this case only because they being the co-travellers, tried to settle the dispute with the travel agency. He submits that the petitioners along with 32 other persons including the complainant had registered for the Kailash Mansarovar Yatra tour with the co-accused Rajendra Kumar Pradhan’s travel agency for travelling in August, 2014. He further submits that it was informed by the co-accused Rajendra Kumar Pradhan that due to heavy land slide in the China Border from Kathmandu, the proposed tour cannot be conducted by them and as such, the amount was returned to the individual travellers vide cheques of ICICI bank, which ultimately got -2- bounced. He submits that a legal notice was sent on behalf of the travellers including these petitioners and the co-accused Rajendra Kumar Pradhan. He also submits that on negotiation, the matter was compromised and the co-accused Rajendra Kumar Pradhan given the option to all the 34 proposed travellers either to opt for travel in the next year 2015 during the period May 2015 to September, 2015 or to take the appropriate money. He further submits that in the entire complaint the only allegation against these petitioners are there that they have gone to negotiation on behalf of the complainant and others and apart from this, there is no other allegation against these petitioners. He submits that the cheque and amount has been deposited in the account of the accused No. 1, who is the travel agent. On these backgrounds, he submits that no case of cheating is made out, as from the very beginning, intention to cheat is not there. As such, he submits that the entire criminal proceeding may kindly be quashed. 6. On the other hand, learned A.P.P. for the State submits that the matter is arising out of a complaint case and the learned court has been pleased to take cognizance on the said complaint petition. 7. In the solemn affirmation, the complainant has clearly stated that the amount in question was deposited in the account of accused No. 1 namely Rajendra Kumar Pradhan. So far as these two petitioners are concerned, they are also tour travellers along with the complainant and others and they have only tried to negotiate with the travel agent. On these background, it transpires that the intention of cheating from the very beginning is not there so far as these two petitioners are concerned, which is one of the ingredients to make out a case of cheating, however, the learned court has been pleased to take cognizance under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioners. As such, to allow to continue the proceeding will amount to an abuse of the process of law. 8. Accordingly, the entire criminal proceeding including the order taking cognizance dated 22.08.2016, by which, cognizance for the -3- offence under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code has been taken against the petitioners, in connection with C/1 Case No. 2858 of 2015, pending in the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jamshedpur, are hereby, quashed, so far as these petitioners are concerned. 9. It is made clear that the court has not quashed the entire criminal proceedings including the order taking cognizance so far as other persons are concerned and the learned court will proceed in the matter in accordance with law. 10.
Decision
This petition is allowed and disposed of. Amitesh/- (Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.) -4-