Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 1278 (MP)

Shyamnath Sharma v. State of M. P.

2011-11-11

G.S.SOLANKI

body2011
ORDER 1. The petitioner has filed this petition, invoking extra ordinary jurisdiction of this Court under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, for quashing the first information report registered at police Station. Habibganj, Bhopal under section 420 of IPC and further proceeding thereto. 2. The facts, in nutshell, giving rise to this petition are that, on the basis of complaint made by complainant Anil Gupta, an FIR was registered at Police Station Habibganj, Bhopal vide Crime No. 524/2010 under section 420 of IPC against the petitioner. 3. According to the prosecution, late Asharani Sharma was having a saving account and FDR in Punjab & Sindh Bank, Shahpura Branch, Bhopal. After the death of Asharani Sharma, a conspiracy has been made to embezzle the amount by making a forged and fabricated document by the petitioner. It is further alleged that petitioner with the connivance of the bank officers included his name in the account of late Asharani. It is further alleged that Asharani appended her signatures but the petitioner somehow showed her signature by thumb. It is also alleged that two accounts were opened in the name of Asharani and Smt. Santosh Sharma whereby both are one lady. Both the accounts are operated by the petitioner by making forged signatures. On the basis of aforesaid allegation, a case under section 420 of IPC was registered against the petitioner. 4. It is pleaded on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner is an adopted son of late Asharani Sharma, who died on 6.2.2005. He is an innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. Hence this petition. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that he is son of Asharani Sharma. He has neither committed any offence nor he made any forged document of her signature. He further submitted that there is no material on record to indicate that petitioner committed any offence under section 420 of IPC, therefore, he prays for quashment of first information report and further proceeding thereto. 6. Learned counsel for the State opposes the petition. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length, perused the case diary and material collected during investigation. 8. On perusal of the record, it reveals that Asharani had died issueless. It is prima facie evidence on record that petitioner Shyamnath Sharma introduced Smt. Santosh Sharma at the time of opening ofaccount No. 6425 in the bank. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length, perused the case diary and material collected during investigation. 8. On perusal of the record, it reveals that Asharani had died issueless. It is prima facie evidence on record that petitioner Shyamnath Sharma introduced Smt. Santosh Sharma at the time of opening ofaccount No. 6425 in the bank. It is also on record that he tried his level best to show the bank that Asharani and Smt. Santosh Sharma was the same lady. In this Account Smt. Santosh Sharma shown with the alias name Asharani Sharma. It is also an record that other account numbers like 4651, 130 and 4655 are only on the name of Asharani. In these circumstances, there is a prima facie evidence on record for dishonest concealment of facts which amount to deception and deception is main ingredient of cheating under section 415 of IPC. 9. Considering the aforsaid prima facie evidence on record, it cannot be said that ingredients of section 420 of IPC are not present in this case. On the contrary as mentioned hereinabove, prima facie the dishonest concealment of fact reveals from record, amount to deception and same requires trial of the case. 10. Thus, no case is made out for interference by this Court to exercise inherent jurisdiction under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The petition is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed.