Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 308 (JHR)

Kundan Kumar Sinha v. State of Jharkhand

2023-03-14

SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI

body2023
JUDGMENT : Pursuant to order dated 01.12.2022, status report and explanation has been submitted by the learned A.C.J.M, Dhanbad which is on record. 2. Looking into the said explanation, the Court finds that sufficient reason has been disclosed for delay in disposal of the case and accordingly, the explanation is accepted by this Court. 3. Status report suggests that the case is pending for appearance of the accused. 4. Heard Mrs. J. Mazumdar, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Prabir Kumar Chatterjee, learned counsel for the State and Mr. Krishna Muarari learned counsel for the O.P. No. 3. 5. The present petition has been filed for quashing of the order dated 03.06.2013 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Dhanbad whereby cognizance has been taken under sections 406/420 of the I.P.C. and also for quashing of including entire criminal proceeding in connection with Complaint Case No. 224 of 2013, pending in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Dhanbad. 6. The complaint case has been filed alleging therein that the complainant is the employee of BCCL, working at Gopalichuk Colliery, P.B. Area, P.S. Kenduadih, District, Dhanbad. It is alleged that the complainant in the year, 2002 all of sudden fell in urgent need of Rs. 15,000/- as such having come to know about the saving and credit model Co-Operative Society, having its office at Chiragora, Hirapur, Dhanbad vide Reg. No. JKD/02/03/01/13/OTH/2001 approached the said office in relation to his said loan matter. It is further alleged that the accused posed himself to be the Executive officer of Saving and Credit Model Co-operative Society where after negotiation between the accused and the complainant, the accused agreed to provide loan of Rs. 15,000/- only against security deposit of Rs. 50,000/- and thereby the accused directed the complainant that loan could be given only against deposit in the form of LIC policy, or any other term deposit slip. Being in urgent and desperate need of money the complainant agreed to deposit his LIC policy for taking the said loan. It is further alleged that on the basis of negotiation between the complainant and the accused, the complainant handed over his original LIC Policy Certificate being numbered as LIC Policy No. 552435864 dated 28.03.1991 of sum assured of Rs. Being in urgent and desperate need of money the complainant agreed to deposit his LIC policy for taking the said loan. It is further alleged that on the basis of negotiation between the complainant and the accused, the complainant handed over his original LIC Policy Certificate being numbered as LIC Policy No. 552435864 dated 28.03.1991 of sum assured of Rs. 50,000/- which was due to be matured in the month of March, 2011 and thereafter the accused directed the complainant to put his signature on certain documents including some blank papers. The complainant being an illiterate man could not understand the motive or intention of the accused and being guided by good faith the complainant put his signature accordingly and thereafter the loan of Rs. 15,000/- was granted vide A/C No. T/L 143. It is further alleged that after sometime in the year, 2002 of part payment of the loan amount was paid by the complainant to the accused for which the accused issued a receipt to the complainant and thereafter the complainant paid the entire remaining amount with interest in the month of March, 2012 when the complainant made the full and final payment with interest to the accused and the complaint asked the accused to issue receipt for the same, at which the accused took false pleas of non availability of receipt and to issue the entire receipt after publication of receipt book. It is further alleged that in spite of making the full and final payment to the accused in the name of the society, the accused did not return the original LIC certificate of the complainant which was deposited in the custody of the accused at the time of taking loan by the complainant rather on every occasion the accused misbehaved and gave false assurance to the complainant in relation to return of the LIC policy. It is further alleged that thereafter to the complainant’s utter surprise the complainant came to know that the accused by pledging the said LIC policy of the complainant at the Dhanbad Central Co-operative Bank Ltd, Dhanbad has obtained loan in his own name. It is further alleged that thereafter to the complainant’s utter surprise the complainant came to know that the accused by pledging the said LIC policy of the complainant at the Dhanbad Central Co-operative Bank Ltd, Dhanbad has obtained loan in his own name. It is further alleged that having come to know about the fraud and mischief committed by the accused with the complainant, the complainant became shocked and surprised and enquired the matter with LIC office, Branch-II, Dhanabd, where on dated 04.07.2012 he was issued a status report of his said policy no. 552435864, wherein to his utter dismay it was mentioned that the said policy had matured and its maturity amount of Rs. 77,129/- and additional amount of Rs. 8,374/- has been credited as per the assignment in the name of the Dhanbad Central Co-operative bank Ltd. It is further alleged that having come to know about the said pleading and assignment the complainant immediately enquired the matter with the Dhanbad Central Co-operative Bank Ltd,, Dhanbad vide his letter dated 31.07.2012, the Branch Manager of the said Bank replied the complainant’s letter vide his Ref. No. 23/12-13 dated 27.08.2012 mentioning therein that the LIC Policy of the complainant had been deposited by the accused Kundan Kumar Sinha for obtaining a loan in his own name. It is further alleged that having come to know of the entire fraud committed by the accused with the complainant, the complainant became utterly dismayed and approached the accused at his office and thereafter at his residence where the complainant was misbehaved and threatened by the accused not to raise this issue or else he shall have to suffer dire consequences. Seeing the activities of the accused, the complainant was terrified and thereafter approached his advocate and narrated the entire incidence. It is further alleged that the conducting lawyer of the complainant after hearing the entire incident, enquire the matter and came to know that the accused not only committed the fraud with this complainant, rather the accused has committed similar fraud with several others as well as for which the accused is facing trial in various cases at Civil Court, Dhanbad and in some case he has been convicted as well. It is further alleged that thereafter an advocate notice was served to the accused on 11.09.2012 wherein the accused was directed to settle the dispute and return the original policy certificate along with its maturity values amounting to Rs. 77,129/- and interest Rs. 8374/-. In spite of receiving the said letter the accused did not reply the same even after passage of three months. It is further alleged that seeing the intention and motive of the accused the complainant left with no other option rather to file this complaint before the learned court. 7. Mrs. J. Mazumdar, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent and has not taken loan on the LIC policy of the complainant. The petitioner is an agent of Dhanbad Central Co-operative Bank Ltd and he has been unnecessarily been dragged in this case. She submits that the petitioner has not taken any loan from the LIC policy of the complainant inspite of that complaint case has been filed. She further submits that a supplementary affidavit has been filed wherein document has been filed disclosing that the complainant has not taken step for withdrawal of LIC policy. She further submits that in view of the said document it is crystal clear that the complainant has not filed any petition for withdrawal of the LIC policy. On these grounds, she submits that the entire criminal proceeding including cognizance order is fit to be quashed. 8. Learned counsel for the State submits that the learned court after going through the complaint petition as well as Solemn Affirmation of the complainant and the enquiry witness has taken cognizance and there is not illegality in the impugned order. 9. In view of above submission of the learned counsel for the parties, the Court has gone through the complaint case and finds that there is allegation against the petitioner. There is allegation that in spite of making the full and final payment to the accused in the name of the society, the accused did not return the original LIC certificate of the complainant which was deposited in the custody of the accused at the time of taking loan by the complainant rather on every occasion the accused misbehaved and gave false assurance to the complainant in relation to return of the LIC policy. It is alleged in the complaint that the complainant came to know that the accused by pledging the said LIC policy of the complainant at the Dhanbad Central Cooperative Bank Ltd, Dhanbad has obtained loan in his own name. There is allegation against the petitioner and the cognizance order is well reasoned order. No interference is required by this Court. Accordingly, this petition is dismissed.