Research › Search › Judgment

Calcutta High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 810 (CAL)

Bhakta Ranjan Sannigrahi v. State Of West Bengal

2018-11-20

ASHA ARORA

body2018
JUDGMENT : ASHA ARORA, J. 1. By the present application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure petitioner has challenged the proceeding arising out of Simlapal P.S. Case No. 11/2012 dated 16.02.2012 under Sections 420/34 of Indian Penal Code being G.R. Case No. 119/2012 pending before the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Khatra at Bankura. Petitioner also assailed the order dated 31.07.2015 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Khatra, Bankura in Criminal Revision No. 12/2015 affirming the order dated 26.06.2015 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Khatra whereby the prayer for discharge of the petitioner was rejected. 2. The facts in brief leading to the present application are as follows : 3. On 16.02.2012 the complainant Sudhir Kumar Sarkar, Secretary of Baricha Samabay Krishi Unnayan Samity (S.K.U.S.) Limited, a registered cooperative society lodged a written complaint at Simlapal P.S. alleging the offence of cheating against the petitioner and his two sons. The allegation against the petitioner is that he took loan of Rs. 50,000/- (rupees fifty thousand only) from the said society by mortgaging his land which he had already sold to the Government. The aforesaid fact was suppressed by him. Against the sons it was alleged that they took loan from the society by falsely projecting their fallow land as agricultural. Investigation culminated in the submission of the charge-sheet under Section 406/420/34 of I.P.C. against the petitioner and his two sons who made an application before the learned Magistrate paying for discharge. After contested hearing, the aforesaid application was allowed in part by the order dated 26.06.2015 whereby the two sons of the petitioner were discharged from the case but the prayer for discharge qua the petitioner was rejected. Petitioner challenged the aforesaid order in Criminal Revision No. 12/2015 before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Khatra. By the order impugned the criminal revision was dismissed on contest. 4. Aggrieved, the petitioner preferred the instant application. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the ingredients of the offences alleged are conspicuously wanting and the F.I.R. does not disclose any intention to deceive from the very inception. It has further been canvassed that the petitioner placed all the documents before the B.L. & L.R.O. who sanctioned the loan after perusal of the same. There was, therefore, no suppression of any fact on his part. 6. It has further been canvassed that the petitioner placed all the documents before the B.L. & L.R.O. who sanctioned the loan after perusal of the same. There was, therefore, no suppression of any fact on his part. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the State countered that the petitioner applied for loan of Rs.50,000/- (rupees fifty thousand only) by mortgaging his land which he had already sold to the Government. The facts disclose a prima facie case of cheating against the petitioner. 7. It is well settled that the Court while framing charge should apply the prima facie standard. The test to determine prima facie case would depend upon the facts of each case. At the stage of framing charge or while considering a petition for discharge of the accused, it is not for the trial Judge or the Magistrate to hold a roving enquiry into the pros and cons of the matter and weigh the materials as if he was conducting a trial. It is to be seen whether the uncontroverted allegations made in the F.I.R. disclose a prima facie case for the offences alleged. The Court is required to find out if the facts emerging from the materials on record, taken at their face value constitute the alleged offence. Disputed questions of fact are matters to be decided during the trial. In the instant case, upon perusal of the F.I.R., charge-sheet and the Case Diary it cannot be said that there is no prima facie case for proceeding against the petitioner for the offences alleged. It appears that on 04.12.2010 the petitioner had taken a second loan of Rs.50,000/- (rupees fifty thousand only) from the society by mortgaging his land which he had already sold to the Government on 12.08.2010. The allegation against the petitioner is that he had falsely represented to the society that he was the owner of the land which he had already sold. Evidently, the factual foundation for the offence alleged has been sufficiently laid. 8. For the reasons aforestated, the application is devoid of merit and is liable to be dismissed. The impugned order warrants no interference. 9. The application being C.R.R. 3258 of 2015 is thus dismissed. 10. No order as to costs. 11. Evidently, the factual foundation for the offence alleged has been sufficiently laid. 8. For the reasons aforestated, the application is devoid of merit and is liable to be dismissed. The impugned order warrants no interference. 9. The application being C.R.R. 3258 of 2015 is thus dismissed. 10. No order as to costs. 11. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case and the learned Magistrate shall proceed with the trial in accordance with law without being influenced by any observation made herein above. 12. Urgent Photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the applicant upon compliance of requisite formalities.