The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Revision No. 1297 of 2022 --------- (Against the order dated 08.03.2022 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Ranchi in Chutiya P.S. Case No. 201 of 2014, corresponding to G.R.No.5784 of 2014) --------- Rajesh Kumar, aged about 51 years son of Sri Ramesh Chandra Mishra, resident of 306, 3rd Floor, Purnima Apartment, Lane No.1, Salimpur Ahra, P.O. & P.S.-Kadam …Petitioner Kuan, District-Patna (Bihar) … 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Ranjeet Kumar Mishra, son of late Umesh Chandra Mishra, -Versus- Branch Credit Manager, Shriram Transport Finance Company Ltd. Having its branch Office situated at J.P.Complex, P.P. Compound, P.O. & P.S.-Chutia, District-Ranchi (Jharkhand) … …Opp. Parties --------- P R E S E N T
Legal Reasoning
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUBHASH CHAND For the Petitioner For the Opp. Parties : Mr. Amit Kumar Das, Advocate : Mr. Manoj Kumar Mishra, Advocate --------- C.A.V. on 20.12.2023 : Pronounced on 24.01.2024 --------- The instant Cr. Revision has been directed against the order dated 08.03.2022 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Ranchi in Chutiya P.S. Case No. 201 of 2014, corresponding to G.R.No.5784 of 2014, whereby and whereunder the learned Judicial Magistrate has framed the charge against the petitioner for the offence under Sections 409/420/467/468/471/120-B of the Indian Penal Code. 2. The brief facts leading to this Cr. Revision are that the complaint was filed on behalf of complainant M/s Shriram Transport Finance Company Ltd. through Authorized Representative Ranjeet Kumar Mishra against Kraft Auto Pvt. 2 Ltd., Rajesh Kumar Singh, Surendra Prasad, Abhishek Kumar, Animesh Narayan and Rajesh Kumar with these allegations that Ranjeet Kumar Mishra is the constituent attorney of the complainant company duly authorized to sign, verify, file and institute the present complaint by virtue of power of attorney by resolution passed by the Board of Directors. Accused No.2 once approached to the complainant company with a quotation dated 10.05.2013 issued by Accused No.1 Kraft Auto Pvt. Ltd. and in this respect consulted to accused No.4 and 5 for the purpose to purchase a new Indigo Manza in which Accused No.3 stood as a guarantor. For the purpose mentioned above Accused No.2 & 3 entered into a loan-cum-hypothecation Agreement on 14.05.2013. Accused No.4 and 5 being the product executive and Branch Manager were authorized for verification of the entire documents in support of the aforesaid agreement supplied by proposed borrower and guarantor and to make the proper physical verification of address and background details of borrower and guarantor since accused No. 4 & 5 confirmed regarding genuineness of the documents, the complainant company relying upon them granted loan to the Accused No. 2 & 3 realizing over the documents supplied by accused No.2 and 3 under the recommendation and physical verification conducted by accused No.4 and 5 as required, the complainant company sanctioned the loan of Rs.5,68,425/- and the sanctioned amount was released by way of cheque bearing No.96214617 dated 14.05.2013. It was also agreed in the agreement that 3 Accused No.2 and 3 were to pay the loan amount along with interest by way of monthly instalment in a manner stipulated in the aforesaid agreement. Even after lapse of almost more than nine months Accused No.2 and 3 neither submitted the copy of registration certificate nor paid the instalment due in favour of the complainant company as was stipulated. Accused No.6 being the then Regional Business Head was responsible for each and every business activities in the course of employment and authority when Accused No.4 the then product executive, Accused No.5 the then Branch Manager were in direct control of the authority and executing their every business in the direction. On making queries from Accused No.4 and 6 in regard to fraudulent sanction of the loan, legal notice was issued to all the accused persons, evasive reply was given of the same by them and also resigned from the company to wriggle out from the
Decision
above responsibility. In view of the above prayed to summon the accused persons for the offence under Sections 409/420/467/468/471/120-B of I.P.C. 3. On this application which was treated under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. by the order of the Magistrate the case crime No. 201 of 2014 was registered under Sections 409/420/467/468/471 of the I.P.C. with the Police Station Sadar Chutiya, District-Ranchi against all the six accused. 4. The I.O. concluded the investigation and filed the report under section 173 of Cr.P.C. with this conclusion that no charge 4 is made out against the accused persons as alleged in the F.I.R. in view of the evidence collected by him. 5. The court concerned took cognizance on the very charge-sheet under Section 190B of Cr.P.C. against all the accused persons in view of the evidence collected by the I.O. differing from the conclusion drawn by the I.O. vide order dated 12.11.2021. Thereafter the learned court-below framed the charge against the accused persons vide order dated 08.03.2022. 6. From the perusal of the L.C.R., it is found that the learned court-below had taken cognizance vide order dated 12.11.2021 and fixed the date 30.11.2021 summoning the accused persons. On 30.11.2021 again the date 22.02.2022 was fixed for appearance of the accused. On 22.02.2022 further date was fixed 08.03.2022 for the appearance of accused. 7. From the perusal of the order dated 08.03.2022, it is found that no application for discharge was moved on behalf of any of the accused persons including the petitioner and the learned court-below framed the charge against all the accused persons for the offence under Sections 409/420/467/468/471/120B of I.P.C. This charge was also read over and explained to all the accused persons who denied the charge and claimed to be tried and the case was fixed for prosecution evidence. 5 8. Since the petitioner-accused Rajesh Kumar had moved no application for discharge before the learned court-below and even he did not orally oppose the charge being framed by the learned trial court, the impugned order dated 08.03.2022 by which the charge was framed against the accused persons cannot be challenged by way of preferring revision against the same. 9. Since before the learned trial court no objection was raised by the accused persons nor the application for discharge was moved and the learned court-below framed the charge against all the accused persons. Nothing has been decided by the learned court-below, so as to challenge the same by way of revision. 10. In view of the above, the impugned order passed by the learned court-below bears no infirmity or illegality and the same needs no interference. Accordingly, this Cr. Revision deserves to be dismissed. 11. This Cr. Revision is hereby dismissed. The impugned order passed by the court-below is affirmed. (Subhash Chand, J.) Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi Dated the 24.01.2024 P.K.S./A.F.R.