Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 12 (GAU)

Pinku Roy v. Ranjit Debnath

2018-01-04

MIR ALFAZ ALI

body2018
JUDGMENT AND ORDER : 1. Mr. P.K. Roy Choudhury, learned counsel for the appellant and Ms. S. Jahan, learned Addl. P.P. Assam for the State were heard. 2. This petition under Section 482 CrPC has been filed praying for quashing the order dated 23.11.2012 passed by the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Hojai taking cognizance against the petitioners under Section 406 and 420 IPC on the basis of complaint filed by the respondent No. 2 as well as criminal proceeding in CR Case No. 572/2012 arising out of the said complaint. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners Mr. P.K. Roy Choudhury placing reliance on a decision of this court rendered in Mahindra & Mahindra Financial Services Ltd. vs. Delta Classic Pvt. Ltd. 2009 (4) GLT 741 contended that the learned Trial Court while taking cognizance under Section 420/406 IPC on the basis of the complaint filed by the respondent, did not apply judicial mind, inasmuch as, on the same set of facts, a person cannot be held liable simultaneously for offence of criminal breach of trust under Section 406 IPC and cheating under Section 420 IPC. Learned counsel submits that the learned Trial Court took cognizance and issued process mechanically without applying judicial mind and therefore the order of taking cognizance under Section 406 and 420 IPC, as well as, the criminal proceeding is required to be quashed. 4. Before adverting to the submission of the learned counsel, it will be apposite to have a look at the scope of interference with the criminal proceeding at the threshold, in the exercise of inherent power under Section 482 CrPC, which may not require much effort. The law relating to the scope of interference with the criminal proceeding and quashing a complaint or an FIR at the threshold, in the exercise of inherent power under Section 482 CrPC is well settled by a long line of judicial decision. The Apex Court in the celebrated decision in State of Haryana vs. Bhajan Lal, 1992 (Supp. The law relating to the scope of interference with the criminal proceeding and quashing a complaint or an FIR at the threshold, in the exercise of inherent power under Section 482 CrPC is well settled by a long line of judicial decision. The Apex Court in the celebrated decision in State of Haryana vs. Bhajan Lal, 1992 (Supp. 1) SCC 335, while dealing with the contour of power under Section 482 CrPC enunciated the following principles, which have been followed in a number of decision of the Apex Court “(1) Where the allegations made in the First Information Report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirely, do not prima-facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused. (2) Where the allegations made in the First Information Report and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156 (1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of section 155 (2) of the Code. (3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused. (4) Where the allegation in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155 (2) of the Code. (5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. (6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned act (under which criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party. (6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned act (under which criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party. (7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala-fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance of the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal private grudge.” 5. While enunciating the above principle, the Apex Court in Bhajan Lal (supra) also cautioned that inherent power under Section 482 CrPC for quashing a criminal proceeding has to be exercised very sparingly in exceptional cases only and observed as under: “103. We also give a note of caution to the effect that the power of quashing a criminal proceeding should be exercised very sparingly and with circumspection and that too in the rarest of rare cases; that the Court will not be justified in embarking upon an enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the FIR or the complaint and that the extra ordinary or inherent powers do not confer an arbitrary jurisdiction on the Court to act according to its whim or caprice.” 6. In Ramu vs. Kovvuri Satyanarayana Reddy, (2011) 12 SCC 437 dealing with the question as to when the High Court should exercise the inherent power under Section 482 CrPC for quashing a complaint at the threshold, the Apex Court observed as under. “It would not be proper for the High Court to analyse the case of the complainant in the light of all the probabilities in order to determine whether conviction would be sustainable and on such premise arriving at a conclusion that the proceedings are to be quashed. In a proceeding instituted on a complaint, exercise of inherent powers to quash the proceedings is called for only in a case in which complaint does not disclose any offence or is frivolous, vexatious or oppressive. There is no need to analyse each and every aspect meticulously before the trial to find out whether the case would end in conviction or acquittal. The complaint has to be read as a whole. There is no need to analyse each and every aspect meticulously before the trial to find out whether the case would end in conviction or acquittal. The complaint has to be read as a whole. The statement of witnesses made on oath to be verified in full and materials put forth in the charge-sheet ought to be taken note of as a whole before arriving any conclusion. It is the material concluded during the investigation and evidence led in court which decides the fate of the accused persons.” 7. Thus, while considering whether a complaint or FIR deserves to be quashed at the threshold, one of the primary test as laid down in Bhajan Lals case (supra) is whether the allegations made in the complaint or FIR, even if taken at their face value and accepted in entirety do not make out any criminal offence. If the answer is in affirmative, the High Court should not hesitate to quash such a criminal proceeding to secure ends of justice or to prevent abuse of the process of the Court. As a corollary when the allegations made in the FIR or complaint taken in their face value and accepted in entirety makes out a criminal offence, even prima-facie, the exercise of inherent power to quash such criminal proceeding is not warranted. 8. Keeping in mind the above principle and guidelines, let me first consider the complaint in the present case and the allegations made therein to ascertain whether is it a case where the allegations made in the complaint, even if taken at their face value and accepted in its entirety do not make out a criminal offence at all. 9. The respondent in his complaint against the petitioners alleged that the petitioner No. 1 is the CMD (Chairman-cum-Managing Director) of the financial establishment, namely, First Life an Enterprise Ltd. The petitioner nos. 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 are the Managing Director and petitioner No. 8 is the Branch Manager of the said institution. The petitioners induced the people for saving money with their establishment and engaged the respondent and 32 others as their agent for collecting money from public. They collected money amounting to Rs. 4,72,586/- and deposited with the petitioners under several policies opened with the petitioners. The petitioners induced the people for saving money with their establishment and engaged the respondent and 32 others as their agent for collecting money from public. They collected money amounting to Rs. 4,72,586/- and deposited with the petitioners under several policies opened with the petitioners. Most of the policies when became mature and the beneficiaries/policy holders claimed their maturity amount, the petitioners with the intention to misappropriate all the monies collected from customers under the policies, closed the office. When the respondent and other customers and agents asked the petitioners to return the money against the matured policies, they refused to pay the money and also intimidated them. On the basis of the said complaint, learned Magistrate took cognizance of offence under Section 406 and 420 IPC against the petitioners and issued process. 10. Going through the above allegations made in the complaint in the instant case, in my considered opinion it is difficult to hold that the allegations made in the complaint do not make out any criminal offence at all, inasmuch as, there are clear allegations of inducement and entrustment of property and also refusal to discharge the trust and/or misappropriation of the money entrusted with the petitioners. Even if it is assumed that the allegations made in the complaint are little bit blurred and/or discloses ingredients of more than one offence, which may not go together or there may be confusion at the initial stage as to which of the penal provisions will be attracted, it cannot be said that the allegations do not make out any offence or ingredients of any offence at all. Therefore, having considered the allegations made in the complaint in its face value, in my considered view this cannot be held to be a case making out no criminal offence or no ingredients of any criminal offence. 11. Therefore, having considered the allegations made in the complaint in its face value, in my considered view this cannot be held to be a case making out no criminal offence or no ingredients of any criminal offence. 11. Now coming to the submission of the learned counsel and the observation of this court in Mahindra & Mahindra (supra), this Court in Mahindra & Mahindra (supra) while discussing the ingredients of offence under section 420 and 409 held in paragraph-17 as under: “(17) In the light of the distinction, which exist between an offence of criminal breach of trust and an offence of cheating, it becomes clear that if a person is accused of having committed an offence of criminal breach of trust, he cannot, on the same facts and in the same breath, be accused to have committed the offence of cheating too. In the present case, the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance of offences under both penal provisions, namely, Section 420 and 409 IPC. Having taken cognizance of both the offences aforementioned, the learned Magistrate has accordingly directed issuance of processes. This reflects non-application of mind inasmuch as the accused must know as to whether he is summoned to defend himself against the accusation of criminal breach of trust or cheating, for, he cannot be, in one and the same breath, be accused of having committed both the said offences.” 12. It is no doubt true, that it may not be possible to hold a person guilty and convict him for offence of cheating under Section 420 IPC and criminal breach of trust, under Section 406 IPC simultaneously, on the same set of facts. But it is to be borne in mind that taking cognizance, having found prima-facie materials of an offence against a person and ultimately at the conclusion of trial holding a person guilty of an offence are not same thing. While taking cognisance, the court simply needs to consider whether there is prima-facie material to proceed against a person or whether there are allegations prima-facie constituting any offence. It is not expected of the Magistrate/Court to decide for certainly at the time of taking cognisance, as to what offence has been committed or under what provision the conviction of the accused shall be recorded ultimately. It is not expected of the Magistrate/Court to decide for certainly at the time of taking cognisance, as to what offence has been committed or under what provision the conviction of the accused shall be recorded ultimately. In a criminal case, broadly there are three crucial stages, when the Magistrate/Court needs to apply judicial mind and take major decision to further the proceeding to its logical conclusion i.e. firstly the stage of taking cognisance, when a complaint is filed or a police report under Section 173 is received, secondly the stage of framing charge and finally at the stage of judgment after consideration of all the evidences and materials brought on record. 13. Chapter XV of the CrPC deals with the procedure to be undertaken by Magistrate while taking cognizance of an offence on a complaint. Section 203 CrPC provides that if after considering the statement on oath (if any) of the complainant and of the witnesses and the result of the enquiry or investigation (if any) under Section 202, the Magistrate is of the opinion that there is no sufficient ground for proceeding, he shall dismiss the complaint. Section 204 CrPC provides that if in the opinion of the Magistrate taking cognizance of an offence, there is sufficient ground for proceeding, the Magistrate shall issue process. While taking cognizance and issuing process as per procedure laid down in Chapter-XV and XVI CrPC, the Magistrate or court is only required to see, whether there are sufficient ground for proceeding against the person against whom a complaint is lodged or police report is filed. Thus, taking cognizance of offence necessitates application of mind by court to see whether there is prima-facie case or sufficient ground for proceeding against a person. At the time of taking cognizance and issuing process neither there is such scope nor there is any statutory requirement for the Magistrate to decide finally as to what offence has been committed or under what provision the conviction of the accused shall be recorded. Because there may be allegation of various offences, but ultimately all offences may not be proved. Therefore, it is neither feasible nor desirable of a Magistrate/Court to decide at the time of taking cognizance, as to for what offence the accused shall be held liable at end of the trial. Because there may be allegation of various offences, but ultimately all offences may not be proved. Therefore, it is neither feasible nor desirable of a Magistrate/Court to decide at the time of taking cognizance, as to for what offence the accused shall be held liable at end of the trial. Once the Magistrate is satisfied that there is prima-facie case and ground for proceeding against the person, court shall issue process and after issuance of process and appearance of the accused person the next stage is for framing of charge. 14. Framing of charge is the second major steps in criminal proceeding where the court is expected to apply its mind to the entire records and materials produced before it and also to hear the parties to take a decision whether charge shall be framed or not. At this stage also it is not necessary for the court to come to a finding whether the trial would end in conviction or not. If after consideration of the material and record brought before it and hearing the parties, court finds that there is prima-facie case against the accused, court shall frame charge. If the court finds that there is not even a prima-facie case to further proceed against the accused, court may discharge the accused. 15. Once charge is framed, parties are required to adduce evidence and at the end of the trial, finally the court has to pronounce the judgment holding the accused guilty or not guilty. While pronouncing judgment finally, after considering all the evidence and materials brought on record, the court has to come to a finding that accused has committed an offence or has not committed an offence. When the Magistrate/Court comes to a conclusion that commission of offence has been proved, next step shall be to decide as to what offence has been committed or which penal provision is attracted by the offence proved against a particular accused. It may so happen, that cognizance may be taken of various offences, but while framing charge, court may not find material or court may not be satisfied to frame charge under all the sections alleged in the complaint or police report of which cognizance was taken initially. It may so happen, that cognizance may be taken of various offences, but while framing charge, court may not find material or court may not be satisfied to frame charge under all the sections alleged in the complaint or police report of which cognizance was taken initially. Similarly, it may so happen, that at the end of the trial, prosecution might be able to prove only one or some of the charges and fail to prove others, of which cognizance was taken or charges were framed. In that case, conviction of the accused would be only in respect of the charge or charges which has/have been proved beyond reasonable doubt. Therefore, necessarily law does not require that cognizance has to be taken or charge has to be framed only under such penal provision for which accused shall be held guilty at the end of the trial. 16. While looking at the ingredients of the offence under Section 420/406 IPC, there is no doubt, that on the same set of facts, there may not be conviction of a person, simultaneously under both Sections i.e. 420 and 406 IPC, being cheating and criminal breach of trust. But there is no difficulty in taking cognizance or framing charge under Section 406 and 420 IPC simultaneously against same person on the same set of facts as framing of alternative charge is permissible under Section 221 CrPC which reads as under: “221. Where it is doubtful what offence has been committed. (1) If a single act or series of acts is of such a nature that it is doubtful which of several offences the facts which can be proved will constitute, the accused may be charged with having committed all or any of such offences and any number of such charges may be tried at once; or he may be charged in the alternative with having committed some one of the said offences. (2) If in such a case the accused is charged with one offence, and it appears in evidence that he committed a different offence for which he might have been charged under the provisions of sub-section (1), he may be convicted of the offence which he is shown to have committed, although he was not charged with it. 17. (2) If in such a case the accused is charged with one offence, and it appears in evidence that he committed a different offence for which he might have been charged under the provisions of sub-section (1), he may be convicted of the offence which he is shown to have committed, although he was not charged with it. 17. Illustration (a) to Section 221 makes the provision further clear, which reads as under: “(a) A is accused of an act which may amount to theft, or receiving stolen property, or criminal breach of trust or cheating. He may be charged with theft, receiving stolen property, criminal breach of trust and cheating, or he may be charged with having committed theft, or receiving stolen property, or criminal breach of trust or cheating.” 18. The illustration (a) to Section 221 CrPC, thus makes it abundantly clear that simultaneous framing of charge for the offence of cheating and criminal breach of trust is permissible on the same set of facts, as indicated in Section 221 CrPC. When it is permissible to frame alternative charge simultaneously for offence of cheating and also criminal breach of trust on the same set of facts, if it is doubtful as to which offence has been committed, in my considered view, there is no difficulty in taking cognizance under all the sections, which prima-facie appears to be attracted by the allegations made in the complaint or when it is doubtful or there is confusion as to which of the several penal provision will be attracted, notwithstanding the facts that all the offences may not be proved finally or conviction for all the offences, of which cognizance is taken, may not be possible at the conclusion of the trial. 19. When it is permissible under the statute to frame alternative charge, for the offence of cheating and criminal breach of trust, taking cognizance by the Magistrate on the same set of facts alleged in the complaint for offences both under Section 406 and 420 IPC cannot vitiate the entire proceeding or trial, nor a complaint deserves to be quashed solely on the ground of taking cognizance under Section 406 and 420 IPC simultaneously on same set of facts. 20. 20. What therefore follows from the above discussion is that though conviction of an accused for offence of cheating and criminal breach of trust may not be possible on the same set of facts, there should not be any difficulty in framing alternative charge or taking cognizance of offence under Section 420 and 406 IPC, simultaneously. 21. Being of the above view, I have no hesitation to hold that taking cognizance under Section 420 & 406 IPC at the same time on the same set of facts cannot be held to be impermissible under the law, nor can it be held as abuse of the process of court. In the above facts and circumstances, having regard to the allegations made in the complaint in the instant case and also the scope of interference with the criminal proceeding under Section 482 CrPC as enunciated by the Apex Court, I am unable to persuade myself to concur with the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the proceeding is liable to be quashed only because of the fact, that cognizance was taken both under Section 406 and 420 IPC on same set of facts. 22. For the reasons stated hereinabove, it is held that the instant criminal petition is devoid of merit and deserves to be dismissed. Accordingly, the criminal petition is dismissed. 23. Send down the LCR.