Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 159 (MP)

Chatur Narayan Raghuvanshi v. State of M. P.

2005-02-02

S.L.JAIN

body2005
JUDGMENT Invoking extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under section 482 CrPC, the petitioner who is a practising Advocate at Udaipura District Raisen, has filed this petition for quashing the proceedings in RT No. 13/04 for offences punishable under sections 419 and 420 of the IPC, pending in the Court of JMFC, Udaipura. Facts leading to the filing of the petition are as follows: A jeep, Mahendra Commander bearing registration No. 38A/05 was seized by the police of police station Deori, District Raisen in connection with Crime No. 197/00 for the offences punishable under sections 279 and 337 of the IPC. One person impersonating himself as Gyani Prasad Son of Shri Ramratan, aged 36 years, resident of Simaria Khurd, Tahsil Silwani, District Raisen, contacted the petitioner claiming himself.to be the owner of the said jeep for getting the vehicle on supurdgi. On the instructions of aforesaid person, petitioner filed an application under section 457 of the CrPC before the competent Court of JMFC, Udaipura. The petition was signed by the said person. The petitioner filed his memo of appearance. The learned Magistrate after calling for the case diary allowed .the application and directed the said jeep to be released on supurdnama of Rs. 6 lacs. Thereafter one Jahur Khan, filed a complaint to the Disrtict Judge, Raisen making allegation that one Brij Bhushan impersonated himself as Gyani Prasad and obtained the said vehicle on Supurdnama. On enquiry District Judge found that Gyani Prasad is an illiterate person who puts thumb mark. This Gyani Prasad was an employee of Brij Bhushan. Brij Bhushan obtained the thumb marks of Gyani Prasad on the relevant application and other documents for grant of loan in favour of Gyani Prasad from M.P. Aadivasi Vitth Evam Vikas Nigam Raisen and received the loan amount. The amount of loan was used by Brij Bhushan for purchasing the jeep in the name of Gyani Prasad. When the vehicle was seized by the police, Brij Bhushan impersonated himself of Gyani Prasad and filed application for getting the vehicle on supurdgi. When the application was allowed, Brij Bhushan obtained the possession of the jeep by signing the supurdinama as Gyani Prasad. The imposter was identified by Godhan Singh and other persons. When the vehicle was seized by the police, Brij Bhushan impersonated himself of Gyani Prasad and filed application for getting the vehicle on supurdgi. When the application was allowed, Brij Bhushan obtained the possession of the jeep by signing the supurdinama as Gyani Prasad. The imposter was identified by Godhan Singh and other persons. The learned District and Sessions Judge also found that Chatur Narain Raghuvanshi Advocate (petitioner) also abetted the commission of offence by assisting Brij Bhushan and prima facie the offence under sections 419 and 420 IPC appears to have been committed. The learned District and Sessions Judge, vide memo No. 423/Nayalaya 03 dated 22.4.2003 directed the SHO Udaipura, District-Raisen to take necessary action in the matter. On the basis of the aforesaid report, Crime No. 106/03 was registered against Brij Bhushan, Godhan, against one unknown person and also against the present petitioner. After investigation, a challan for offences punishable under sections. 419 and 420 of the IPC was filed against the aforesaid accused persons. I have heard Shri Manish Datt, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shrimati S. Paliwal, Government Advocate for the State. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that petitioner is an Advocate and after being enrolled in the year 1988 in the bar, he is in regular practise of Udaipura, within the ambit of District Raisen. The FIR and other documents filed with the challan do not disclose any offence against the petitioner. The only allegation against the petitioner is that he filed an application before the competent Court on behalf of Gyani Prasad for getting the vehicle on supurdgi. Mere filing of such an application, does not make out an offence either under section 419 or 420 of the IPC. The petitioner had no knowledge that the person who approached him is not Gyani Prasad. It is not alleged against the petitioner that he identified the person who filed the application as Gyani Prasad. Accepting the FIR and other material in its entirety no offence against the petitioner is made out. Per contra, learned counsel for State submits that at this stage there cannot be a meticulous analysis of the case to find out whether the case would end in conviction or not. It is not alleged by the petitioner that the report made against him by the District and Sessions Judge is mala fide, frivolous or vexatious. Per contra, learned counsel for State submits that at this stage there cannot be a meticulous analysis of the case to find out whether the case would end in conviction or not. It is not alleged by the petitioner that the report made against him by the District and Sessions Judge is mala fide, frivolous or vexatious. Therefore, there is no jurisdiction for interference by this Court. Having perused the material on record, I find that the allegation against Brij Bhushan is that he cheated the Court by impersonation. There is not an iota of evidence against the petitioner that he was knowing the person who filed the application or he had reason to believe that person who is contacting him is not Gyani Prasad. When the person who filed the application introduced himself to be Gyani Prasad, there was no reason for the petitioner to doubt the correctness of his statement. It is not alleged against the applicant that he dishonestly induced the Court to deliver the jeep. The petitioner did not induce the Court to do or omit to do some thing which the Court would not have done or omitted if the Court was not so deceived by the petitioner. It is also not alleged against the petitioner that he dishonestly concealed any fact which may amount to deception. Filing of an application without ensuring that the person who filed the application is Gyani Prasad, does not amount to any offence. The petitioner has neither identified Gyani Prasad nor he has filed any affidavit. The facts and circumstances are not such as to exclude any reasonable hypothesis of good faith. The ingredients required to constitute the offence of cheating under section 415 IPC are: (i) There should be fraudulent or dishonest inducement of a person by deceiving him: (ii) (a) The person so deceived should be induced to deliver any property to any person or to consent that any person shall retain any property; or (b) The person so deceived should be intentionally induced to do or omit to do anything which he would not do or omit if he were not so decided; and (iii) In cases covered by (ii) (b) the act or omission should be cine which causes or is likely to cause damage or harm to the person induced in body, in reputation or property. Each part of the section is dependent of the other. The common feature in all parts is that there must be deceit practised by the accused. It is true that deception may be by words or conduct. Whether a person was deceived or not depends upon the facts and circumstances of a particular case. If an advocate drafted the application honestly believing the representation of a client to be true, there can be no question of cheating and in such a case fraudulent or dishonest intention necessary to constitute an offence would be lacking. As mentioned earlier, the allegations made in the FIR and the charge-sheet even if they are taken at their face value, do not constitute an offence against the petitioner. In the result, the petition is allowed. The proceedings pending against the petitioner Chatur Narayan Raghuvanshi in R.T. No. 13/2004 in the Court of JMFC, Udaipura, District Raisen, are accordingly quashed. However, the proceedings against the other accused shall continue in accordance with law.