Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 1333 (JHR)

Meera Singh v. State of Jharkhand

2009-10-14

PRADEEP KUMAR

body2009
JUDGMENT Pradeep Kumar, J. This revision application is directed against the order dated 10.9.2008 passed by Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Bermo at Tenughat in T.R. No. 1045 of 2008 (arising of Bokaro Thermal P.S. Case No. 91 of 2007, G.R. Case No. 949 of 2007) whereby and where under the learned S.D.J.M. rejected the petition filed by the petitioners under Section 239 Cr.P.C. for discharge. It appears that earlier the application was jointly filed by Meera Singh and Niraj Singh, but the prayer for discharge of the petitioner no. 1, Meera Singh was rejected by this Court by its order dated 15.5.2009 and only the case of petitioner no. 2, Niraj Singh was admitted. 2. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner no. 2 that there is no iota of allegation to make out a case under Sections 406/420/120B of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioner no. 2, Neeraj Singh, who was a minor boy aged about 14 years on the alleged date of occurrence, when it is alleged by the complainant that he gave friendly loan of Rs. 5 lakhs to the main accused Heera Singh. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied in a decision reported in 2007(5) SCC 403 in the case of Soma Chakraborty that if there is no material to make out a prima facie case against accused the charges should riot be framed. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State has submitted that a prima facie case is made out against the accused-petitioner no. 2, Niraj Singh as such the learned trial court rightly refused the prayer of discharge filed by him. Since as per the judgment relied by the petitioner, it is stated that even when there is strong suspicion is made out then also charges can be framed. 5. After hearing both the parties and going through the record, .1 find that a complaint was filed by the complainant, Biranchi Prasad Mishra stating therein that the complainant and the accused, Hira Singh were in friendly term since 1985. In November, 2003 the accused Hira Singh settled the marriage of his daughter, Nisha, but he was not able to arrange money for arranging the marriage, hence he asked a friendly loan of Rs. In November, 2003 the accused Hira Singh settled the marriage of his daughter, Nisha, but he was not able to arrange money for arranging the marriage, hence he asked a friendly loan of Rs. 5 lakhs and that the complainant offered to pay the money, but said that he has to purchase a car in June, 2004 and as such he must repay the said money by June, 2004, which the complainant agreed. Then, on the assurance given by the accused, Hira Singh the complainant gave Rs. 4,80,000/- (Rupees four lakhs eighty thousand) to accused, Hira Singh on 21.3.2004 in presence of witnesses and other accused and that Hira Singh also executed a document acknowledging the receipt of Rs. 4,80,000/- (Rupees four lakhs eighty thousand). It is said that after the solemnization of marriage of Nisha the complainant demanded from the accused persons the repayment of the loan amount on 15.6.2004 since, he had to purchase a car, then the accused, Hira Singh said that he has purchased a Alto Car on loan from ICICI Bank, Korba, Chhatisgarh on hire purchase and handed over the said car to the complainant in the month of July, 2004. The accused, Hira Singh also assured him that he will pay the installment to the bank regularly and after hire purchase is over he will transfer the ownership in favour of the complainant. He further stated that the accused, Hira Singh said that after adjusting of the price of Alto Car the rest amount will be repaid to him within three months. The complainant was using the Alto Car and in December, 2004 he asked the accused, Hira Singh to pay rest of the money, but Hira Singh postponed the same. In the meanwhile, on 25.10.2007 the Manager and employees of ICICI Bank, Bokaro Branch came and seized the Alto Car and stated that Hira singh has not paid the installments and he is unable to clear the loan amount and has surrendered the said -car on 25.10.2007. 6. Thus, it is alleged that accused, Hira Singh and his wife Meera Singh as also son connived to defraud the money, which was taken by the accused, Hira Singh and filed the complaint petition. It is stated that on the date when the money was given i.e. 21.3.2004 the petitioner no. 6. Thus, it is alleged that accused, Hira Singh and his wife Meera Singh as also son connived to defraud the money, which was taken by the accused, Hira Singh and filed the complaint petition. It is stated that on the date when the money was given i.e. 21.3.2004 the petitioner no. 2, Niraj Singh was only aged about 14 years and his registration certificate of Central Board of Secondary Education, Delhi has been annexed as Annexure-2 to this petition, which shows that he was only aged about 14 years and there is no allegation that this minor boy also accepted the money alongwith father and mother, Hira Singh and Meera Singh nor there is an allegation that he was responsible for the payment of the loan amount with regard to Alto Car, which was taken by Hira Singh on hire purchase. As per the complaint petition, it appears that there is not even a strong suspicion to make out a case under Sections 406/420/120B of the Indian Penal Code against the accused-petitioner no. 2, Niraj Singh. 7. As has been settled in the aforesaid ruling of Soma Chakraborty reported in 2007(5) SCC page 403, that when there is absolutely no material on record to form an opinion that this minor child also committed any offence, hence the charges framed against him are not fit to be sustained. Accordingly, the charges framed against the accused-petitioner no. 2, Niraj , Singh under Sections 406/420/120B of the Indian Penal Code are set aside and revision filed by accused-petitioner no. 2, Niraj Singh is allowed.