Dismissed

Uma Prasad Chatterjee v. State of Jharkhand And Anr.

Jharkhand HC11 Mar 2015Cr.M.P./183/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court dismissed petitioner's application to quash criminal proceedings. Court held that prima facie case of cheating existed as petitioner issued training certificates stating wrong place of training, distinguishing this fact from cited precedents.

What did the court decide?

Application to quash criminal proceedings dismissed; no interference warranted at this stage.

Uma Prasad Chatterjee Vs State of… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Jharkhand HC (2015)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶2

Cr.M.P. No. 183 of 2007

¶3

¶4

Uma Prasad Chatterjee, Son of late Maya Pada Chatterjee, Resident of Flat No. A/1, Kaveri Apartment, G.T. Road, Gopalpur, P.O. & P.S. Asansole, District-Burdwan ( W.B).

¶5

…..Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

The State of Jharkhand.

¶8

Sishir Kumar Pathak, Son of Sri Shailesh Kumar Pathak, Residing at Plot No. 300, Co-operative Colony, Bokaro Steel City, P.S. Bokaro, District-Bokaro.

¶9

…. Opposite Parties

¶10

Coram: HON’BLE MR JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY

¶11

For the Petitioner : Mrs. Ritu Kumar, Advocate For the State : APP ----- C.A.V. On 27.01.2015 Pronounced on 11/3/2015

¶12

Heard the parties.

¶13

In this application, the petitioner has prayed for quashing the entire criminal proceeding in connection with Complaint Petition No. 403 of 2005 including the order dated 17.03.2006, passed by learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Bokaro, whereby and whereunder cognizance has been taken for the offence punishable under sections 420, 504, 506, 468, 471, 418, 474, 120 B of the Indian Penal Code.

¶14

The prosecution story as would appear from the complaint petition instituted by the opposite party no. 2, in which it was stated that Bajaj Allianz Insurance Company through the Regional Manager of R.N.I.S. College of Insurance had licence from Insurance regulatory body of India namely I.R.D./A to give training and issue training certificate. It has been further stated that the petitioner was selected for the post of Sales team Manager by the company on 19.11.2004 and he is working at Satellite office, Bokaro. It has been alleged that the accused nos. 5 & 6 asked the complainant to give business of Rs.2 lakhs and create a team of 15 Insurance Care Consultants. It has further been alleged that the complainant managed to give 12 agents for training, which started from 3^rd December, 2004 and the said programme was conducted at City Centre, near Rimjhim Hotel, B.S. City, Bokaro by one Mr. Kaushal Kishore and after completion of training on 23.12.2004, the certificate had been issued to each successful candidates by the petitioner, which shows Asansole (W.B)

¶15

-2-

¶16

as the place of training. It has also been alleged that all the trainees got training at Bokaro Steel City after paying an amount of Rs.580/but got the training certificate of “Crepesden training institute”, Sarda Pally, Asansole (W.B.) and therefore it was alleged that the accused persons had committed fraud with the training, which was brought to the knowledge of the accused no. 5 and to the Chairman, I.R.D.A. It has further been alleged that the complainant was under pressure from his agent for being cheated as the place of training was shown in a different place than the actual place of training and that they were apprehensive of future consequences. The complainant has further alleged that although the complainant was selected as a salary based employee but no appointment letter was issued till 7^th January, 2005 and although subsequently an appointment letter dated 15.12.2004 was received on 8.1.2005 but the said appointment letter was signed and sealed by accused nos. 2 & 3 mentioning the date of appointment as 15.12.2004, although the team of Insurance Care Consultants were working after getting certificates of training from 3.12.2004 to 23.12.2004 under the supervision of the complainant. It has been claimed by the complainant that the accused nos. 1, 2 & 3 issued two appointment letters of different dates and that when the complainant had brought the alleged fraud and irregularity to the knowledge of accused nos. 5 and 6, he was victimized in various ways.

¶17

After conducting an inquiry on examining the complainant on solemn affirmation as well as his witnesses vide order dated 17.03.2006, passed by learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Bokaro in Complaint Petition No. 403 of 2005, cognizance was taken for the offence punishable under sections 420, 504, 506, 468, 471, 418, 474, 120 B of the Indian Penal Code.

¶18

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the entire allegations made in the complaint petition are false and concocted and that no specific allegation has been levelled against the petitioner. It has been submitted that the name of the petitioner has cropped up only because of the fact that the petitioner was the issuing authority on the certificates issued to the Insurance Care Consultants for their training. It has been submitted that none of the agents/trainees had come forward to lodge a case against the petitioner. It has further been submitted that the fees, which were

¶19

-3-

¶20

charged from the trainees, were paid to Bajaj Allianz and the petitioner was never a beneficiary of the same. The complainant, according to learned counsel for the petitioner, was an employee of Bajab Allianz Life Insurance Company Limited but subsequently his services were terminated and thereafter the complaint petition was filed, which shows that the same was done with an ill-intention and as a retaliatory measure to his termination. Learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to the judgments in the case of Indian Oil Corporation Vs. NEPC India Ltd, reported in (2006) 6 SCC 736, Inder Mohan Goswami Vs. Union of India, reported in AIR 2008 SC 251: (2007)12 SCC 1 and Anil Mahajan Vs. Bhore Industries, reported in (2005) 10 SCC 22.

¶21

Learned counsel for the State, on the other hand, has submitted that there is specific allegation against the petitioner for issuing a certificate, in which the place of training was shown at Asansole in the State of West Bengal, whereas the actual training was imparted at Bokaro and no reasonable explanation has been given by the petitioner with respect to change of venue of the alleged training, which was undertaken by the Insurance Care Consultants as alleged by the complainant and in such circumstances no interference in the criminal proceedings is warranted.

¶22

After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the State and on going through the records, I find that so far as the petitioner is concerned, it has been specifically mentioned that it was the petitioner, who had issued the certificate to the successful candidates on completion of training, which was conducted at City Centre, near Rimjhim Hotel, B.S. City, Bokaro but the training certificates were issued of “Crepesden training institute”, Sarda Pally, Asansole (W.B.). When there is a specific allegation against the petitioner of issuance of training certificate from an institute situated at Asansole, West Bengal, whereas the training itself was imparted in Bokaro Steel City, it cannot said that no prima face offence is made out against the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner has stressed much on the order of this Court dated 11.01.2007, passed in Cr. M.P. No.1578 of 2006, by which the entire criminal proceeding as against the accused no. 5 was quashed. While perusing the said order dated 11.01.2007, it appears that while quashing the entire criminal proceeding as against the accused no. 5,

¶23

-4-

¶24

this Court has taken into consideration the allegations levelled

¶25

against the accused no. 5 and had held thus:-

¶26

“Apparently, the petitioner is not accused of having issued the training certificates, nor was the petitioner in any manner incharge or responsible for issuing of the training certificates to the candidates. Learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2–complainant has argued strenuously to impress upon this Court that by issuing a false and misleading certificate, a forgery was committed by the accused persons, but the learned counsel has not been able to demonstrate as to what is the specific act of forgery and how and by whom was it committed. Learned counsel also is not able to demonstrate as to how and in what manner has the present petitioner committed any act of cheating with the complainant.

¶27

Therefore, the case of accused no. 5 and the present petitioner stands on an entirely differently footing as it was the petitioner, who is alleged to have issued the training certificates. In the case of Anil Mahajon (Supra), it was held that except for mentioning of the words “deceive” and “cheat” in the complaint filed before the Magistrate and “cheating” in the complaint filed before the police, there was no averment about the deceive, cheating or fraudulent intention of the accused at the time of entering into the MOU where from it can be inferred that the accused had intention to deceive the complainant to pay. It was also held therein that the requisite averments so as to make out a case of cheating were absolutely absent.

¶28

In the case of Indian Oil Corporation (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court had laid down the principles relating to the exercise of jurisdiction under section 482 of Cr.P.C. to quash the criminal proceedings, which has been narrated at paragraph 12 of the said judgment. The Hon’ble Court on the ingredients of cheating has held as follows:-

¶29

“32 The essential ingredients of the offence of "cheating" are : (i) deception of a person either by making a false or misleading representation or by other action or omission, (ii) fraudulent or dishonest inducement of that person to either deliver any property or to consent to the retention thereof by any person or to intentionally induce that person to do or omit to do anything which he would not do or omit if he were not so deceived and which act or omission causes or is likely to cause damage or harm to that person in body, mind, reputation or property.

¶30

In the case of Inder Mohan Goswami (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court had considered the powers and ambit of the High Court under section 482 Cr.P.C. but has also put a note of caution that such powers have to be exercised sparingly, carefully and only when such exercise is justified by the test specifically laid down in section 482 itself.

¶31

As has been discussed above, the petitioner has been

¶32

-5-

¶33

implicated as an accused in the complaint petition on the specific allegation that it was the petitioner who had issued the certificates to the successful trainees and the said certificates show the place of training as Asansole, though the training was imparted at Bokaro. Prima facie, it thus appears that the petitioner had concealed the fact about the place of training to the trainees and the same can be said to be cheating in terms of section 415 of the Indian Penal Code. The judgments referred to by the learned counsel for the petitioner in the facts and circumstances of the case, are not applicable in view of the fact that a prima facie case from a bare perusal of the complaint petition is made out against the petitioner and in such circumstances, no interference in the criminal proceeding as against the petitioner is required at this stage.

¶34

Accordingly, in view of what has been stated above, I find no merit in this application and the same is hereby dismissed.

¶35

(Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J)

¶36

Rakesh/

Uma Prasad Chatterjee v. State of Jharkhand And Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Uma Prasad Chatterjee v. State of Jharkhand And Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Manju Singh Vs Human Resources Department

Nagendra Kumar Sharma Alias Narendra Kumar Alias Banti Sharma and Ors. Vs The State Of Jharkhand

Sadanand Singh and Ors. Vs Human Resources Department

C H Sen and Anr. Vs State Of Jharkhand And Anr.

Suman Devi Vs The State Of Jharkhand And Ors.

Chandra Bhan Prasad Vs State of Jharkhand And Anr.