Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 353 (MP)

Deepak Malviya v. State of M. P.

2023-03-14

VIVEK RUSIA

body2023
ORDER 1. The applicant has filed the present revision under section 397 r/w section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 seeking quashment of the order dated 13.11.2021, whereby the Additional Sessions Judge, Barwani framed charges under Sections 420 r/w section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, section 6 of Madhya Pradesh Nikshepakon Ke Hiton Ka Sanrakshan Adhiniyam & section 3/4 of the Prize Chits & Money Circulation Schemes (Banning) Act, 1978. 2. The investigation has revealed that one resident Ashok Ahirwar lodged an F.I.R. against Santosh More, Santosh Devsat, Rohit Devsat, Munni Devsat, Sanjay Nayak and Lalita Nayak alleging that they explained to him various investment schemes run by Guru Sai Real Estate & Allied Company and took him to its office at Barwani. On their persuasion, he deposited Rs.1,50,000/- on 30.06.2012 and a certificate like FDR bearing registration No.5110005699 disclosing the maturity amount and period was issued by them. After 2 – 3 years, when he went to the local office of the company to get the matured amount from the said policy, the office was found closed. The policy had matured on 31.10.2017, but no amount has been returned to him, hence the accused has misappropriated his money after taking it in the name of investment. Similarly, other investors have also made a complaint of similar nature that despite the maturity of their amount has not been returned and the accused persons have misappropriated the same. 3. The police registered an F.I.R. and started investigation. The present applicant has also been added as an accused as he was found employed in a real estate company from 9.11.2009 to 30.11.2011. On the basis of material available in the charge sheet common charges have also been framed against all the accused. The applicant has filed the present revision on the ground that he has been implicated on the basis of the memorandum statement recorded under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act and apart from that the police has not collected any document connecting him with the said crime. According to him, he already resigned from the company on 1.12.2011 and he was relieved by the promoter of the company. Hence, he has been falsely implicated in the case and the charges as well as F.I.R. be quashed. 4. According to him, he already resigned from the company on 1.12.2011 and he was relieved by the promoter of the company. Hence, he has been falsely implicated in the case and the charges as well as F.I.R. be quashed. 4. According to the complainant, he himself deposited money in the local office of the company on 30.6.2012 and after its maturity, the same has not been returned to date. The applicant has worked as Branch Manager from 9.11.2009 to 30.11.2011 as per the certificate issued by the Guru Sai Real Estate & Allied Company. During that relevant period, certain investments were made in the company which have not been returned to the depositors after their maturity. The applicant has been added as one of the co-accused with the aid of sections 34 & 120-B of the IPC. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that there is no specific role attributable to the present applicant in this case. As per the 27 memorandum statement of this applicant, he was appointed by Santosh Kumar Devsat after an interview. His job was to make entries of the courier received from Khargone, Dewas, Indore, Sehore and Agra. He worked for 22 months and was paid Rs.20,000/- per month for one year only that too in cash. He made entries of rupees 1 to 1.4 crore in R.D./ F.D. Nothing has been alleged by any of the witnesses or complainants that he received the amount and issued a forged F.D. Undisputedly the entire amount was deposited with the company and certificates were issued. The police have not recovered any amount from his possession except joining and relieving letters. He has received only the salary and except that, no amount has come in his account. The applicant has no criminal past and the charges are liable to be quashed, hence be discharged from this criminal case. 6. Learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State submits that this applicant has been implicated in this case with the aid of section 120-B of IPC as he was associated with the main accused Suresh Bilal. He also prompted various schemes of the company and lured innocent persons for depositing their hard money in the company therefore, he has rightly been added as co-accused in the charge sheet hence, no interference is liable to be made out. 7. Heard and perused the case record. 8. He also prompted various schemes of the company and lured innocent persons for depositing their hard money in the company therefore, he has rightly been added as co-accused in the charge sheet hence, no interference is liable to be made out. 7. Heard and perused the case record. 8. Vide order 13.11.2021 the learned Sessions Judge, Barwani has framed the following charges against this applicant which are reproduced below:- ^^¼1½ fnukad 09-11-2021 ls ysdj fnukad 31-10-2017 rd vkius lg vkjksihx.k ds lkFk feydj yksxksa ls /ku jkf'k fuos'k djkus dk lkekU; vk;k cuk;k vkSj mlds vxzlj.k esa /kks[kk/kM+h djus ds vk'k; ls jkt?kkV jksM+ isVªksy iai ds lkeus cM+okuh esa xq: lkabZ fj;y LVsV ,aM ,ykbZM daiuh dk vkWfQl [kksydj Qfj;knh jkeflag] vfurk] y{e.k o vU; ds lkFk csbZekuhiwoZd Ny dkfjr djus ds vk'k; ls djhc 8]25]000@& :i;s dh jkf'k mDr daiuh esa ;g >wBk ykyp nsdj tek djk;h fd mDr jkf'k de vof/k esa nksxquk gks tk;sxh rFkk mDr jkf'k mUgsa u ykSVkdj Qfj;knh rFkk vU; ds lkFk Ny dkfjr fd;k vkSj bl Ádkj vkius og vijk/k fd;k tks HkkŒnaŒlaŒ dh /kkjk&420 lgifBr /kkjk&34 ds varxZr n.Muh; gS vkSj bl U;k;ky; ds laKku esa gSA ¼2½ mDr ?kVuk fnukad o LFkku ij vkius mDr daiuh dk cM+okuh 'kgj esa vkWfQl [kksydj] mDr daiuh ds Mk;jsDVj@ÁeksVj@lnL;@eSustj gksrs gq;s dEiuh esa Qfj;knh ,oa vU; ds }kjk fuosf'kr èkujkf'k dh ifjiDork ij cksul] C;kt] ykHk ds :i esa Álqfo/kk ds lkFk ;k fn;s x;s opu rFkk fu{ksi ds Áfr vk'oklu ds vuqlkj mUgsa lsok;sa] ykHk] cksul] C;kt Ánku djus esa O;frØe dkfjr fd;k vkSj bl Ádkj vkius og vijk/k fd;k tks e/; Áns'k fu{ksidksa ds fgrksa dk laj{k.k vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk&6 ds varxZr n.Muh; gS vkSj bl U;k;ky; ds laKku esa gSA ¼3½ mDr ?kVuk fnukad o LFkku ij vkius mDr daiuh dk cM+okuh 'kgj esa vkWfQl [kksydj] mDr daiuh ds Mk;jsDVj@ÁeksVj@lnL;@eSustj gksrs gq;s bukeh phV ;k /ku ifjpkyu Ldhe dk lEÁorZu ;k lapkyu dj phV ;k Ldhe ds vuqlj.k esa Qfj;knh jkeflag] vfurk] y{e.k o vU; ls fuos'k ds uke ij voSèk :i ls /ku ÁkIr fd;k vkSj bl Ádkj vkius og vijkèk dkfjr fd;k] tks bukeh phV vkSj /ku ifjpkyu vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 3@4 ds varxZr naMuh; gS vkSj bl U;k;ky; ds laKku esa gSA^^ 9. In this charge there is no specific role attributed to the present applicant. In this charge there is no specific role attributed to the present applicant. The charges are general in nature and according to which from 9.11.2009 (wrongly typed as 9.11.2021) to 31.10.2017 this applicant in furtherance to common intention has opened the office in the name of Guru Sai Real Estate & Allied Company and collected the amount of Rs.8,25,000/- from complainant Ram Singh, Anita, Laxman and others with the assurance to return the double amount after 3 to 5 years as the case may be. The charges under section 6 of Madhya Pradesh Nikshepakon Ke Hiton Ka Sanrakshan Adhiniyam & section 3/4 of the Prize Chits & Money Circulation Schemes (Banning) Act have also been framed against the director, promoters, member and manager. 10. As per the statement of the complainant Santosh Kumar, Rohit, Munni, Bhagirath Rathore and Yogesh Nanawat the director started the business in the name of Guru Sai Real Estate & Allied Company. This applicant was appointed as Branch Manager. During this period he has worked for the company as an employee. In his 27 memorandum statement, he stated that his job was to make entries in the computers of a courier received from Khargone, Dewas, Indore and Agar. He worked for a period of 22 months from 9.11.2009 to 31.10.2011 and received a salary of Rs.20,000/- for one year. He has only made entries of certain F.D./ R.D made during his tenure. The police conducted the search at his residence and only recovered a joining letter, relieving letter, experience letter etc. Not a single document has been recovered to contact this applicant to establish that he received any amount from the depositors and did not deposit in the account of the company and misappropriated. It is the case of the complainant that after depositing of the money by way of fixed deposits in the form of F.D./R.D., certificates were issued by the company and after maturity, the amount was not returned by the company, not by this applicant or other company. None of them has made any allegations against this applicant that he received the money and did not return it. Merely he was the employee of the company he has wrongly been implicated in this case. Learned Session Judge has mechanically framed the charges against him without examining his role and involvement in the crime. None of them has made any allegations against this applicant that he received the money and did not return it. Merely he was the employee of the company he has wrongly been implicated in this case. Learned Session Judge has mechanically framed the charges against him without examining his role and involvement in the crime. There is no iota evidence that he shared any common intention with the directors of the company to commit the crime Hence, the present revision is hereby allowed and the charges framed under sections 420 r/w section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, Section 6 of Madhya Pradesh Nikshepakon Ke Hiton Ka Sanrakshan Adhiniyam & section 3/4 of the Prize Chits & Money Circulation Schemes (Banning) Act, 1978 against the applicant are quashed and he is discharged.