Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 47 (JHR)

Rajnish Kumar Singh v. State of Jharkhand

2013-01-09

R.R.PRASAD

body2013
Judgment Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, learned senior counsel for O.P. No. 2 and the learned counsel appearing for the State. 2. This application has been filed for quashing of the order dated 18/04/2012, passed by the Principal Sessions Judge, Jamshedpur in Cr. Revision No. 144/2009, whereby and whereunder the learned Principal Sessions Judge rejected the criminal revision application, which has been preferred against the order dated 04/05/2009 whereby a petition for discharge filed under Section 245 Cr. P.C., had been rejected by the learned Judicial Magistrate. 3. Before adverting to the submissions advanced on behalf of the parties, the case of the complainant needs to be taken note of. 4. The case of the complainant as it appears from the complaint petition, is that one Girish Kumar Pandey (accused no. 1) had been running 'Osho Surati Meditation Centre' at Jamshedpur in a shop, which was allotted to him by TISCO. Girish Kumar Pandey was not able to run the said Centre on account of financial crunch and, therefore, when Girish Kumar Pandey and these two petitioners, approached the complainant, the complainant offered to sell that shop for a consideration amount of Rs,37,500/. When the complainant agreed to purchase that shop, an agreement was execute by Girish Kumar Pandey and received the money from the complainant. Thereupon, the complainant was put in possession of the shop in which he invested a sum of Rs.1 lakh in purchasing articles for running the shop. Subsequently, petitioner no. 2 (accused no. 2), sold the shop to accused no. 4 Bhupal Singh by executing a sale deed for a consideration amount of Rs.38,000/and then all the accused persons came to the shop of the complainant and removed all the articles, which he had kept in the shop and put the shop under lock. On such allegation, a complaint case was registered being complaint case C/1 No. 1164/2002, in which, after holding enquiry, cognizance of the offence punishable under Sections 406, 420, 506 and 120 B of the Indian Penal Code was taken against the petitioners. 5. Subsequently, when the witnesses were examined before charge on behalf of the complainant, a petition for discharge was filed under Section 245 Cr. P.C., for discharging these two petitioners from the accusation but that petition was rejected vide order dated 04/05/2009. Against that order, criminal revision was preferred vide Cr. 5. Subsequently, when the witnesses were examined before charge on behalf of the complainant, a petition for discharge was filed under Section 245 Cr. P.C., for discharging these two petitioners from the accusation but that petition was rejected vide order dated 04/05/2009. Against that order, criminal revision was preferred vide Cr. Revision No. 144/2009, which was also dismissed on 18/04/2012. Being aggrieved by those orders, this application has been filed. 6. Mr. Ananda Sen, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that though the Court below has held that sufficient materials are there for framing charge under Sections 406, 420, 506 and 120 B of the Indian Penal Code but nothing seems to be there against these two petitioners to show that these two petitioners induced the complainant fraudulently or dishonestly to part with the money, rather the allegations seems to be there against Girish Kumar Pandey. Still the Court held that sufficient materials are there to frame charge under the aforesaid sections and, thereby, orders passed by the trial court and also by the revisional court are fit to be set aside. 7. As against this, learned senior counsel appearing for O.P. No. 2 submits that the allegations have been put in that all the accused persons came together to the house of the complainant and stated that 'Osho Surati Meditation Centre' belongs to Girish Kumar Pandey and then Girish Kumar Pandey entered into an agreement with the complainant whereby he agreed to sell out the shop for a consideration amount of Rs.37,500/, which was paid to Girish Kumar Pandey and then the complainant was put in possession of the shop. But, subsequently, it is the petitioner no. 2, who sold the shop to accused no. 4 and all these facts go to indicate that the alleged offence was committed by the accused persons after hatching conspiracy with each other and, thereby the Courts below had rightly rejected the application, filed for discharge. 8. But, subsequently, it is the petitioner no. 2, who sold the shop to accused no. 4 and all these facts go to indicate that the alleged offence was committed by the accused persons after hatching conspiracy with each other and, thereby the Courts below had rightly rejected the application, filed for discharge. 8. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, it does appear that as per the allegations made in the complaint that these two petitioners and other accused persons came to the house of the complainant and said that the shop, in which 'Osho Surati Meditation Centre' is running, belongs to Girish Kumar Pandey and, thereafter, Girish Kumar Pandey entered into an agreement whereby a sum of Rs.37,500/was paid by the complainant to Girish Kumar Pandey and not to these two petitioners and then the complainant was put in possession. Subsequently, that shop, according to the allegation made in the complainant, was sold to accused no. 4 by petitioner no. 2 and, thereafter, all the accused persons came to the shop of the complainant and removed all the articles worth Rs.1 lakh and put the shop under lock. 9. All these allegations, does indicate that Girish Kumar Pandey alongwith other accused including petitioner no. 2 Vidyeshwar Prasad Singh (accused no. 2) hatched the conspiracy to cheat the complainant whereby the complainant was put in possession on giving money to accused no. 1 but subsequently, he was thrown out of the possession of the house and, therefore, the court below has rightly held that sufficient materials are there for framing charge under Sections 406, 420, 506 and 120 B of the Indian Penal Code against Girish Kumar Pandey as well as petitioner no. 2 Vidyeshwar Prasad Singh. So far as petitioner no. 1 is concerned, he though has been alleged to have approached the complainant alongwith other accused but further overt act has been alleged against him to show that he had induced the complainant fraudulently and dishonestly to part with the money. Thus, nothing seems to be there for constituting offence under Sections 406, 420, 506 and 120 B of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioner No. 1 Rajnish Kumar Singh and, hence, that part of the impugned order is hereby set aside. 10. With the aforesaid observations, this application stands dismissed.