Research › Search › Judgment

Orissa High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 85 (ORI)

Surendranath Mishra v. State of Orissa

2017-01-18

B.K.NAYAK

body2017
JUDGMENT B.K. NAYAK, J. - The petitioner has filed the present application under Section 482, Cr.P.C. for quashing the criminal proceeding in G.R. Case No.258 of 2015, arising out of Chatrapur P.S. Case No.119 of 2015, which was later converted to CID, CB, Cuttack P.S. Case No.28 of 2015 for the offences under Sections 420/423/467/468/471/406/506/120-B/34 I.P.C. pending in the Court of the learned S.D.J.M., Chatrapur, Ganjam. 2. The prosecution case as per the F.I.R. lodged by the informant are as follows : The informant started visiting petitioner’s Ashram, i.e. Trahi Achyuta Ashram, at – Jheenti for treatment of his insane son and the petitioner treated the informant’s son for 3 to 4 days by performing some Puja. There, the petitioner asked the informant to donate some land at Chatrapur for opening a Branch of petitioner’s Ashram. The petitioner also promised the informant that his son would be cured by his treatment. In view of such promise, the informant agreed to donate Ac.0.970 dec. of land pertaining to different plots, situated at Chatrapur by-pass road in favour of Trahi Achyuta Ashram Trust. It is further alleged that accordingly the petitioner’s son, Trilochan Mishra had another person, namely, Debi Prasad Rath, son of Chittaranjan Rath of Trahi Achyuta Nagar came to the office of Sub-Registrar, Chatrapur on 12.04.2014 for the purpose of execution and registration of gift deed by the informant. They prepared a deed and got the signatures of the informant and his son on the same creating a belief that it was a deed of gift. At a subsequent point of time, the informant came to know that the petitioner’s son, Trilochan Mishra and his companion fraudulently prepared a sale deed in place of the deed of gift and got the signatures of the informant and his son thereon. It has been recited in the deed that a consideration of Rs.26,84,570/- was paid to the informant towards the value of the land, though the informant had never received a single rupee.The informant’s son was however not cured and when he intimated the said fate to the petitioner and also about the fraud committed in the transfer of the property, the petitioner turned a deaf ear and that Trilochan Mishra and Debi Prasad Rath also threatened the informant that in case he disclosed the fact to any body, he and his son would lose their lives. 3. 3. It is submitted by the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner that the allegations made in the F.I.R.a nd the materials collected so far during investigation do not make out a prima facie case under Section 420 of the I.P.C. relying on the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court reported in AIR 2008 SC 251 : Inder Mohan Goswami & Anr.V. State of Uttaranchal & Ors., the learned Senior Counsel submits that the allegations in the F.I.R. do not make out any fraudulent or dishonest inducement by the petitioner to the informant to donate the property as part of deception, nor there is an intention to deceive the informant. 4. Learned Additional Government Advocate submitted that the petitioner deceived the informant by promising to cure his insane son by his treatment by performing certain pujas and thereby induced the informant to deliver (donate) property to his Ashram and even without the son of the informant being cured, he arranged to get fraudulently a sale deed in respect of the land through his son and another from the informant and that the petitioner’s inducement was fraudulent and dishonest. 5. In the case of Sri Bhagwan Samardha v. State of A.P. and others reported in (1999) 5 Supreme Court Cases 740, it is held as follows : “8. If somebody offers his prayers to God for healing the sick, there cannot normally be any element of fraud. But if he represents to another that he has divine powers and either directly or indirectly makes that other persons believe that he has such divine powers, it is inducement referred to in Section 415, I.P.C. Anybody who responds to such inducement pursuant to it and gives the inducer money or any other article and does not get the desired result is a victim of the fraudulent representation. The Court can in such a situation presume that the offence of cheating falling within the ambit of Section 420 I.P.C. has been committed. It is for the accused, in such a situation to rebut the presumption. 6. The Court can in such a situation presume that the offence of cheating falling within the ambit of Section 420 I.P.C. has been committed. It is for the accused, in such a situation to rebut the presumption. 6. The petitioner had filed BLAPL No.7367 of 2015 before this Court, which was heard and rejected by another Bench on 25.05.2016 relying on the aforesaid decision of the Apex Court in Sri Bhagwan Samardha (supra) and finding a prima facie case under Section 420 of the I.P.C. and the other Sections of the Penal Code for which charge-sheet was submitted against the petitioner and other co-accused persons. 7. In the instant case, the petitioner represented the informant and persuaded him to believe that he has divine powers and he would cure his insane son by performing pujas and thereby induced the informant to deliver property to him and accordingly property was transferred by the informant even though his son was not cured. Therefore,, prima facie case for the offence under Section 420 of the I.P.C. is made out. 8. No other contention having been raised by the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, I find no merit in the CRLMC, which accordingly stands dismissed. Petition dismissed.