Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 457 (JHR)

Syed Tanveer Hassan @ Syed v. State of Jharkhand

2010-04-12

D.K.SINHA

body2010
Order The instant Cr. Revision is directed against the order impugned dated 6.8.2008 by which the petition filed on behalf of the petitioner for his discharge arising out of Chutia P.S. Case No. 62 of 2006 corresponding to G.R. No. 2358 of 2006 in T.R. No. 135 of 2008 under Section 239 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was rejected by Shri Diwakar Pandey, Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Ranchi for the alleged offence under Sections 419/420/406 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. A notice was duly served upon the informant O.P. No.2 but she did not prefer to enter appearance in the Cr. Revision. 3. The informant O.P. No.2 by presenting a written report before the Doranda police, Ranchi alleged, inter alia, that when she had been to Delhi with her son V. Chandan Kumar for his admission in M.B.A. course, she came across the petitioner Syed Tanveer Hassan @ Syed Tanveer who introduced himself as a person having political influence and impressed upon her that he would get her son admitted in XLRI, Jamshedpur on payment of Rs. 4 lakhs. Having been impressed by such persuasion the informant O.P. No.2 paid a sum of Rs. 4 lakhs to the petitioner at Hotel Sai Heritage, Ranchi and in lieu of that the petitioner issued receipt with the revenue stamp and also issued post dated cheques of his account No. 3271 of Doranda Branch of Canera Bank as security in case he could not be able to get her son admitted in the said institution. After 10 days he sent a copy of the letter addressed by one Vijendra Singh, Secretary, Human Resources Development to the Director of XLRI, Jamshedpur for admission of her son in XLRI with the copies of two money receipts total amounting to Rs.1,13,000/-. an the next date when she contacted the Director Casmir Raj on telephone by giving the reference to the. said letter received through fax, she came to learn that the letter was fake. A copy of subsequent letter which was addressed to the Secretary, XLRI was again sent to the informant which was also found to be fake. The informant then contacted the authorities of XLRI and presented the letters before them but the authorities denied having received any such letter. A copy of subsequent letter which was addressed to the Secretary, XLRI was again sent to the informant which was also found to be fake. The informant then contacted the authorities of XLRI and presented the letters before them but the authorities denied having received any such letter. The post dated cheques which were issued by the petitioner when presented before the Allahabad Bank the same were returned unpaid with the endorsement 'insufficient fund' and being by the criminal act she presented the written report for institution of F.I.R, against the petitioner. The written report presented by the informant-O.P. No. 2 before Doranda Police was forwarded to the Officer-In-Charge, Chutia Police Station and accordingly Chutia P.S. Case No.62 of 2006 was registered on 11.7.2006. 4. Learned Counsel Miss Nehala Sharmin at the outset submitted that the F.I.R. was lodged after one year of the alleged transaction and no reasonable cause has been assigned for such inordinate delay. The informant failed to explain as to how she came in contact with the petitioner and without any security she delivered Rs. 4 lakhs to him at Ranchi and therefore, the Court may take notice that the informant behaved in an unusual manner and her statement implicating the petitioner cannot be relied. It would be evident that the written report alleged to be presented by the informant was not signed by her and therefore, the unsigned report cannot be the basis for the institution of F.I.R. and this fact was ignored by the C.J.M., Ranchi who took cognizance of the offence. Miss Nehala Sharmin, learned Counsel further submitted that in course of investigation the Investigating Officer had visited Sai Heritage Hotel, Ranchi and• ventured to examine the register of the hotel but neither the name of the petitioner nor the name of the informant-O.P. No.2 was found to be entered in the said register on the alleged date of transaction. However, in course of interrogation the Hotel Manager explained that he used to allot the room to the guests only after verifying the identity and therefore, the allegation of the informant could not be substantiated that she delivered a sum of Rs 4 lakhs to the petitioner on 9.7.2005 at Hotel Sai Heritage, Ranchi. 5. However, in course of interrogation the Hotel Manager explained that he used to allot the room to the guests only after verifying the identity and therefore, the allegation of the informant could not be substantiated that she delivered a sum of Rs 4 lakhs to the petitioner on 9.7.2005 at Hotel Sai Heritage, Ranchi. 5. Finally, the learned Counsel submitted that the petitioner never came across the informant O.P. No. 2 as he suspected impersonation by Akram Shadab, who had easy ingress in his house, who removed the cheque book of the petitioner stealthily and used it in the name of the petitioner. By explaining the legal provision Miss Sharmin submitted that if at all two cheques alleged to be issued by the petitioner were bounced having not been honoured, the informant had privilege to file the case under Section 138. of the Negotiable Instrument Act and therefore, Section 420 I.P.C. was not at all attracted against the petitioner and therefore, the order impugned may be set aside and the petitioner may be discharged of his criminal liability. 6. Learned A.P.P. opposed the contention and submitted that there was direct allegation against the petitioner for obtaining 4 lakhs from the informant-O.P. No. 2 on deception and persuasion that he would get her son admitted in the XLRI, a Management Institute of Repute at Jamshedpur and in lieu of that the petitioner issued two cheques as security which also returned unpaid with the endorsement 'insufficient fund' and therefore, it was not a fit case so as to consider the discharge of the petitioner on the face value of allegation which was found to be prima facie sufficient for framing of charge against the petitioner. 7. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, I find that the allegation was prima facie direct against the petitioner who obtained money fraudulently and by causing deception• to the informant and the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner failted to show any cogent ground so as to call for interference in the order impugned by which the petition of the petitioner for his discharge was rejected. It would be relevant to mention that the allegation on its face value was not simple so as to attract criminal liability of the petitioner only under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act. 8. There being no merit, this Cr. Revision is dismissed.