1.Ankit Agarwal ---- 2.Bishnu Agarwal @ Vishnu Agarwal v. 1.The State of Jharkhand 2.Amrendra Kumar Singh
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND, RANCHI ---- Cr.M.P. No. 1157 of 2017 1.Ankit Agarwal ---- 2.Bishnu Agarwal @ Vishnu Agarwal .... Petitioners -- Versus -- 1.The State of Jharkhand 2.Amrendra Kumar Singh .... Opposite Parties With Cr.M.P. No. 1479 of 2016 ---- Vineet Kumar Mantri .... Petitioner -- Versus -- 1.The State of Jharkhand 2.Amrendra Kumar Singh .... Opposite Parties With Cr.M.P. No. 1561 of 2016 ---- Gopal Das Dhanni @ Gopal Das Ghanani @ Gopal Das Dhanani .... Petitioner -- Versus -- 1.The State of Jharkhand 2.Amrendra Kumar Singh .... Opposite Parties ----
Legal Reasoning
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI For the Petitioners For the State :- :- --- Mr. Ajay Kumar Sah, Advocate Mr. Satish Prasad, Advocate Mr. Rajesh Kumar, Advocate For the O.P.No.2 :- Mr. P.P.N. Rai, Sr. Advocate ---- 7/26.06.2024 In all these petitions, common F.I.R as well as the order taking cognizance are under challenge, and that is why, all these petitions have been heard together with consent of the parties. -1- Cr.M.P. No. 1157 of 2017 Cr.M.P. No. 1479 of 2016 & Cr.M.P. No. 1561 of 2016. 2. Heard Mr. Ajay Kumar Sah, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners in all the petitions, Mr. Satish Prasad and Mr. Rajesh Kumar, the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the respondent State in their respective cases as well as Mr. P.P.N. Rai, the learned Senior counsel appearing on behalf of the Opposite Party No.2 in Cr.M.P. No.1479 of 2016 and Cr.M.P. No.1561 of 2016. 3. Notice upon the opposite party no.2 has been effected in Cr.M.P. No.1157 of 2017, however, in this petition no Vakalatnama has been filed. 4. In these petitions, the prayer has been made for quashing of the entire criminal proceeding including the order taking cognizance dated 29.01.2016 in connection with Mango (Azad Nagar) P.S. Case No.510 of 2015, corresponding to G.R. No.3265 of 2015, pending in the court of learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Jamshedpur. 5. The complaint case has been filed alleging therein that the complainant is working as Manager-cum-Authorized Signatory of M/s Rana Enterprises, having its office at Road No.16, Jawahar Nagar, P.S. Azad Nagar, Mango, Jamshedpur and the complainant’s firm is engaged in the business of supplier of plastic granules. For the purpose of business, the complainant used to go to Kolkata, where the accused nos.1, 2 and 3 are working. During the course of visit, the complainant came in contact with accused nos.1,2 and 3 and they took the complainant in their confidence, as they are doing the business of plastic granules. The complainant believing upon their behaviour and version of accused nos.1, 2 and 3 invited them to Jamshedpur in his office. -2- Cr.M.P. No. 1157 of 2017 Cr.M.P. No. 1479 of 2016 & Cr.M.P. No. 1561 of 2016. On 06.07.2015, accused nos.1, 2 and 3 came to the office of the complainant at Jamshedpur and requested him to give them chance to supply plastic granules to the firm of the complainant and in this way accused nos.1, 2 and 3 took the complainant in their confidence. Believing upon the version of the said accused, the complainant placed order on 06.07.2015 to them for supply of plastic granules to his company so 80 M.T total amounting to Rs.73,60,000/-. Out of the aforesaid total amount for supply of 80 M.T plastic granules, the complainant paid a sum of Rs.20 lacs in cash as an advance payment to accused nos.1, 2 and 3 against supply of aforesaid quantity of plastic granules. It has been alleged that accused persons i.e. accused nos.1, 2 and 3 received a sum of Rs.20.00 lacs and executed a money receipt for the same and promised to supply the materials within 15 days. In the money receipt. Accused nos.1 and 2 had signed as receiver and accused no.3 had signed as guarantor. It has been further alleged that after expiry of 15 days when the plastic granules were not reached to the complainant, the complainant made contact with accused persons and they assured that due to some unavoidable circumstances, materials could not reach, but the same will be reached very soon, but accused nos.1, 2 and 3 failed to do so and till date the materials are not reached too the complainant. It has been further alleged that finding no other alternative, the complainant requested the accused persons either to send the materials or return the advance money, otherwise he would sustain heavy loss in his business. Upon which the accused no.1 called the complainant at -3- Cr.M.P. No. 1157 of 2017 Cr.M.P. No. 1479 of 2016 & Cr.M.P. No. 1561 of 2016. Kolkata and when the complainant reached at the address of accused no.1 and asked for his money, the accused no.2 became furious and assaulted the complainant after using filthy and abusive language and ousted the complainant from there. It has been further alleged that suddenly on 22.09.2015 the accused nos.1, 2 and 3 along with accused nos.4,5 and 6 came to the office of the complainant and demanded money receipt, which the accused persons executed at the time of receipt of advance payment of Rs.20 lacs. However, on denial by the complainant, accused no.1 took out a revolver and pointed the same upon the head of the complainant and threatened him that if the complainant has to do the business of plastic granules, then forget Rs.20 lacs. It has been further alleged that at the same time, accused persons also threatened that if the complainant wants to run his business with any person of Kolkata then he has to pay Rs.10 lacs per year to the accused persons as Rangdari, otherwise the complainant will be done to death. It has been further alleged that during that course, the accused no.1 caught the collar of the complainant and said kill him because the complainant did not hand over them the money receipt and all four accused persons started assaulting the complainant. It has been further alleged that during the course of assault on hearing hulla local people started gathering there and on seeing the local people all four accused persons fled away. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the said complaint case was sent by the learned court under section 156(3) -4- Cr.M.P. No. 1157 of 2017 Cr.M.P. No. 1479 of 2016 & Cr.M.P. No. 1561 of 2016. Cr.P.C., and thereafter, the F.I.R was registered being Mango (Azad Nagar) P.S. Case No.510 of 2015. He submits that the police has investigated the matter and submitted charge sheet no.4 of 2016 dated 28.01.2016 for the offence punishable under sections 406, 420 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The learned court has taken cognizance by order dated 29.01.2016 against the petitioners. He submits that so far the investigation with regard to other accused persons are concerned, the same was kept open and subsequently, the supplementary charge sheet was submitted and the police came to the conclusion that falsely the case has been registered and further the recommendation was made by the investigating officer to proceed against the informant under section 182 and 211 of the I.P.C. He submits that the money receipt enclosed with the F.I.R was on the letter head of M/s Rama Enterprises showing payment of Rs.20 lacs cash. He further submits that if the money receipt is issued by the petitioners that cannot be on the letter head of the complainant namely M/s Rama Enterprises. He further submits that on 06.01.2016 the investigating officer has filed a petition before the learned court for F.S.L. examination of the said money receipt and the learned court by order dated 12.08.2016 contained in Annexure-4 directed to send the same to the relevant Laboratory at Kolkata. He submits in view of that in the supplementary charge sheet it has come that the said money receipt was not issued by the petitioners and it was a forged one. On this ground, he submits that the entire criminal proceeding may kindly be quashed. 7. Learned counsels for the respondent State appearing in their respective cases submit that in the further investigation, the said money -5- Cr.M.P. No. 1157 of 2017 Cr.M.P. No. 1479 of 2016 & Cr.M.P. No. 1561 of 2016. receipt was found to be forged one and in view of that the supplementary charge sheet was submitted recommending for prosecution under section 182 and 211 I.P.C against the complainant /informant. 8. Mr. P.P.N. Rai, the learned Senior counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party no.2 submits that if the F.S.L report is there, that can be proved in the trial and the petitioners are required to move before the learned court concerned and only thereafter the ascertainment of the forged money receipt can be ascertained. On this ground, he submits that the entire criminal proceeding may not be quashed. 9. Admittedly, the complaint case was filed which was sent under section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C., and pursuant to that, Mango (Azad Nagar) P.S. Case No.510 of 2015 was registered and the charge sheet has been submitted against the petitioners and the learned court has taken cognizance by order dated 29.01.2016 and the investigation against the other accused persons was kept open. On the petition of the investigating officer, the learned court, by order dated 12.08.2016 contained in Annexure-4, directed to send the said money receipt for its forensic test report which was received by the police and the supplementary charge sheet has been submitted showing that in the forensic science laboratory it was found that the said money receipt was a forged one, and thereafter, the recommendation was also made to prosecute the complainant/ informant under section 182 and 211 of the I.P.C. This fact is further fortified in view of the fact that said money receipt was on the letter head of M/s Rama Enterprises and the money -6- Cr.M.P. No. 1157 of 2017 Cr.M.P. No. 1479 of 2016 & Cr.M.P. No. 1561 of 2016. was said to be received by the petitioners. Thus, prima-facie, it appears that in this background, to allow the present proceeding to continue further, will amount to abuse of the process of law. Further there is no material against the petitioners to prima-facie show that there was any dishonest misappropriation on their part in respect of any property entrusted to them, particularly to the fact that the said money receipt was found to be forged one by the complainant/ informant. A mere breach of a promise, agreement or contract does not, ipso facto, constitute the offence of the criminal breach of trust contained in Section 405 of the I.P.C without there being a clear case of entrustment. Further, the F.I.R /complaint clearly suggest that it was a business transaction, if any. 10. In view of above facts, reasons and analysis to allow the present proceeding to continue further will amount to abuse of the process of law, and accordingly, entire criminal proceeding including the order taking cognizance dated 29.01.2016 in connection with Mango (Azad Nagar) P.S. Case No.510 of 2015, corresponding to G.R. No.3265 of 2015, pending in the court of learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Jamshedpur are quashed. 11. These petitions, being Cr.M.P.No.1157 of 2017, Cr.M.P.
Decision
No.1479 of 2016 and Cr.M.P.No.1561 of 2016 are allowed and disposed of. 12. Pending petition, if any, also stands disposed of accordingly. ( Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.) SI/, A.F.R. -7- Cr.M.P. No. 1157 of 2017 Cr.M.P. No. 1479 of 2016 & Cr.M.P. No. 1561 of 2016.