Quashed

Lal Muni Devi v. State Of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC3 Mar 2014Cr.M.P./1703/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Jharkhand quashed the order taking cognizance of a case involving alleged cheating and criminal breach of trust over cement deals. The court held that no offence was made out as no documents were found to be forged and no proof of entrustment existed for criminal breach of trust.

What did the court decide?

The order dated 15.05.2013 taking cognizance of the offence under the Indian Penal Code is quashed.

Lal Muni Devi Vs State Of Jharkhand — Cheque Dishonour | Jharkhand HC (2014)

¶1

In the High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi

¶2

Cr.M.P.No.1703 of 2013 With

¶3

Cr.M.P.No.1674 of 2013

¶4

Lal Muni Devi…………....Petitioner (Cr.M.P.No.1703 of 2013)

¶5

Sanjay Kumar Gupta @ Sanjay Gupta……….. Petitioner (Cr.M.P.No.1674 of 2013)

¶6

V E R S U S

¶7

State of Jharkhand…………………………Opposite Party

¶8

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE R.R.PRASAD

¶9

For the Petitioners: Mr.Sameer Saurabh For the State : Mrs. Lily Sahay, A.P.P

¶10

2/ 03.03.014. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and learned counsel appearing for the State.

¶11

These applications have been filed for quashing of the order dated 15.5.2013 passed in Ramgarh P.S. case no.230 of 2012 (G.R.No.3764 of 2012) whereby and whereunder cognizance of the offence punishable under Sections 407, 420, 468 of the Indian Penal Code has been taken against the petitioners.

¶12

It is the case of the prosecution that upon an information being received that bags of cement are being unloaded in the factory premises of M/s. Maa Jagdamba Traders for selling it in the black market, raid was laid in the business premises of M/s.Maa Jagdamba Traders where a truck baring registration no.NL-02K-0932 was found standing in front of the business premises of M/s. Maa Jagdamba Traders from which bags of cement were being unloaded for loading it over Tata 407 bearing registration no.JH-02E-4265.

¶13

On being quizzed, driver of the truck stated before the police that cement had been brought at the instance of petitioner, Lal Muni Devi, the owner of the truck and the petitioner, Sanjay Kumar Gupta, proprietor of M/s. Maa Jagdanba Traders

¶14

-2-

¶15

Upon search being made of the truck, challan issued by Sai Enterprises in the name of Sumeet Enterprises was found.

¶16

On such allegation, a case was registered under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468/34 of the Indian Penal Code. The matter was taken up for investigation. After completion of investigation, the police submitted charge sheet showing commission of the offence under Sections 407, 420, 467, 468 of the Indian Penal Code. Accordingly, the court vide order dated 15.5.2013 has taken cognizance of the offence under Section 407, 420, 467, 468 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶17

Mr. Sameer Saurabh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that accepting the entire allegation made in the FIR to be true, no offence either under Section 406, 420 or 468 is made out.

¶18

Furthermore, it was submitted that in fact, Sai Enterprises is an authorized agent of M/s.Lafarge India Pvt. Ltd., who had sold 320 bags of cement to M/s. Sumeet Enterprises wherein consigner was shown as M/s. Lafarge India Pvt. Ltd but the police purposely did not bring that fact on record but even if that fact is left out to be taken into consideration, one cannot find case being made out under Sections 407, 420, 467 of the Indian Penal Code as it has never been the case of the police which would appear from the charge sheet that any document was found to be forged. At the same time, case of cheating is also not made out as none of the person is said to have been defrauded by the petitioners. At the same time, in absence of requisite ingredients, the case is not made out of criminal breach of trust and thereby the order taking cognizance is fit to be quashed.

¶19

-3-

¶20

Having heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and on perusal of the record, it does appear that case was lodged against the petitioners for the reason that bags of cement was being unloaded from a truck and was being loaded over Tata 407. It has been recorded in the FIR that challans were found from the dickey of the truck showing selling of cement by Sai Enterprises to Sumeet Enterprises. Those documents have never been found to be forged. In that event, question of commission of offence under Section 468 is not made out. At the same time, question of commission of offence of cheating is also not made out as there has been absolutely no allegation of any one being cheated by the petitioners by practicing deception. Further no ingredients is there for constituting offence criminal breach of trust as defined under Section 405 of the Indian Penal Code as following ingredients which are required to be there for constituting offence is lacking.

¶21

(a) “a person should have been entrusted with property or entrusted with dominion over property ;

¶22

(b) that persons should dishonestly misappropriate or convert to his own use that property, or dishonestly use or dispose of that property or willfully suffer any other person to do so;

¶23

(c) that such misappropriation, conversion, use or disposal should be in violation of any direction of laws prescribing the mode in which such trust is to be discharged, or of any legal contract which the person has made, touching the discharge of such trust.”

¶24

Under the circumstances, the order dated 15.05.2013 under

¶25

which cognizance of he offence has been taken is hereby quashed.

¶26

In the result, both the applications stand allowed.

¶27

( R.R. Prasad, J.)

¶28

ND/

Lal Muni Devi v. State Of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Lal Muni Devi v. State Of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Syed Shahid Vs The State Of Jharkhand

Reyaj Khan Alias Reyaz and Anr. Vs The State Of Jharkhand

Ganesh Kumar Gupta Vs The State Of Jharkhand

Lalit Prasad Dangi Alias Lalit Mahto Vs State Of Jharkhand

Sanjay Kumar Gupta Vs State Of Jharkhand

Tulsi Kumar Paswan Vs The State Of Jharkhand And Anr.