Partly allowed

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

Jharkhand HC11 Mar 2015Cr.M.P./2622/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners alleged criminal complaints were filed as a shield to evade prosecution by opposite party 1. The High Court held that opposite party 2 had no grievance against the petitioners and quashed proceedings solely against her. The proceedings against opposite party 1 were not quashed as they remain necessary for trial.

What did the court decide?

Quashing of the entire criminal proceeding and the order dated 29.06.2012 so far as Petitioner No. 2 is concerned, but rejection against Petitioner No. 1.

C H Sen and Anr. Vs State Of Jharkhand And Anr. — Cheating and Forgery | Jharkhand HC (2015)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No. 2622 of 2012

¶2

1.C. H. Sen @ Chinta Haransen son of Late B. C. Sen

¶3

2.Shilpa Sen @ Shilpa daughter of Sri C. H. Sen both residents of - 30, Bandhu Path, Tank Road,

¶4

Kadma, PO & PS Kadma, Jamshedpur,

¶5

District East Singhbhum … … Petitioners

¶6

Versus

¶7

1.The State of Jharkhand

¶8

2.Chisum Thomas Daunt son of Cyril Thomal Daunt

¶9

resident of Flat No. 0/7, Ground Floor, Tower Sangam,

¶10

3^rd Phase, Alok Vihar, Ghorabandha (Telco), PO & PS Telco, Jamshedpur, District East Singhbhum … …

¶11

… … Opposite Parties

¶12

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY

¶13

For the Petitioners : Mr. Manish Kumar, Advocate For the Opposite Party No. 1 : A.P.P. For the Opposite Party No. 2 : Mrs. Nivedita Kundu, Advocate

¶14

4/11.03.2015 Heard Mr. Manish Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mrs. Nivedita Kundu, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2.

¶15

In this application, the petitioners have prayed for quashing the entire criminal proceeding in connection with Complaint Case No. C/1-1360/12 including the order dated 29.06.2012 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1^st class, Jamshedpur whereby and whereunder cognizance has been taken for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 506 & 500 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶16

The prosecution case as would appear from the complaint petition filed by the complainant – opposite party no. 2 is that, the complainant is engaged in running a business named as “Jamshedpur Academy of Aviation and Research Studies” (JAARS) which is a Flying Club at Jamshedpur. It has been stated that the complainant and his associates imparted training to the candidates for grooming them for placement in the Airlines. It is alleged that the accused nos. 1 and 2 approached the complainant and requested the complainant that they are interested in joining the Flying Academy so that the accused no. 2 is groomed for joining in an Airlines. The Declaration cum Terms and Conditions form was filled up on 28.08.2009 and advance payment of Rs. 10,000/- was given to the complainant being registration fees. It has been alleged that on 28.08.2009 itself, 2 cheques amounting to Rs. 30,000/-were taken by the accused no. 1 in presence of accused

¶17

no. 2 as security cheques. The complainant had filled up the said cheques, but did not mention dates in those cheques. It has been alleged that on completion of grooming, the accused no. 2 joined Indigo Airlines and on 29.01.2010 she gave in writing to the complainant and to his associates that she was satisfied with the training and that she was getting employed as a Ground Staff in a domestic airlines. It is further been alleged that the accused no. 1 on 10.02.2010 handed over the cheques of Rs. 60,000/- as down payment as per the terms and conditions laid down at the time of registration, but onwards asked the complainant not to produce the cheques as cash will be handed over to the complainant very soon. Pursuations made by the complainant to the accused persons to clear their entire amount of Rs. 60,000/- and also return the 2 security cheques were not heeded to by the accused persons and the same ultimately led the complainant to file a complaint case which was registered as Complaint Case No. C/1-1360/12.

¶18

After conducting an inquiry under Section 202 of Cr.P.C. by examining the complainant on solemn affirmation as well as his witnesses, cognizance was taken by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1^st class, Jamshedpur vide order dated 29.06.2012 for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 506 & 500 of the I.P.C. 5. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that no case is made out from a perusal of the complaint petition. It has been submitted that averments made in the complaint petition differs with the statement under solemn affirmation given by the complainant inasmuch as, in the statement under solemn affirmation, the complainant has clearly stated that on 28.08.2009 itself Rs. 1,10,000/- and Rs. 10,000/- were paid towards fees and registration fees respectively and therefore, in such circumstances the alleged security cheques deposited with the petitioners are absolutely false and concocted. It has further been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that in fact after the accused – petitioner no. 2 secured a job with Indigo Airlines on the basis of training imparted by the Aviation Academy, the petitioner no. 1 had developed friendly relation with the complainant – opposite party no. 2 and since there is request of friendly loan by the opposite party no. 2, the said request was acceded to by the petitioner no. 1 and Rs. 1,20,000/- was given to the complainant – opposite party no. 2 as a friendly loan out of which

¶19

two cheques were given on 09.02.2010 and 22.05.2010 amounting to Rs. 30,000/- each. It has further been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that on 14.10.2011, a complaint case was filed by the petitioner no. 1 and cognizance was taken on 30.05.2012 and thereafter, since the summons were not received by the complainant – opposite party no. 2, bailable warrant of arrest was issued on 18.05.2012 and only to save himself from the criminal prosecution launched by the petitioner no. 1, the present complaint case was instituted by the complainant – opposite party no. 2 on 25.05.2012. Learned counsel for the petitioners thus submits that in view of the circumstances which were prevailing prior to the institution of the complaint case by the complainant – opposite party no. 2, the present application deserves to be allowed and the entire criminal proceeding is liable to be quashed.

¶20

On this, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 has stated that the complaint petition makes out a criminal offence inasmuch as, the security cheques which were given to the accused persons were not illegally converted for their own use and in such circumstances, when there is apparently a criminal case having been made out against the accused persons, the present application is liable to be dismissed. 7. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and after going through the records, I find that the disputes basically revolves around the cheques bearing nos. 327734 and 327735 which the complainant claims were security cheques misused by the petitioners whereas the same 2 cheques have been shown by the petitioner no. 1 in his complaint case bearing C/1 Case No. 2931 of 2011 of having being issued by the complainant – opposite party no. 2 which were subsequently dishonoured on presenting them for encashment on the ground of insufficiency of funds. Therefore, with respect to the 2 cheques as mentioned above separate versions have been sought to be projected by both the complainants and in such circumstances under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., it will be well-nigh impossible to conclude as to which of the versions is correct. However, I must hesitant to had therein that so far as petitioner no. 2 is concerned, the complainant has merely assigned her role with respect to filling up of Declaration cum Terms and Conditions form on 28.08.2009 and the acceptance of 2 security cheques by the petitioner no. 1 in her presence. Therefore, so far as petitioner no. 2 is concerned, she after being imparted training

¶21

by the Aviation Academy and on being groomed had been able to secure an employment as a Ground Staff in Indigo Airlines and the complainant – opposite party no. 2 does not seem to have any grievance whatsoever as against the petitioner no. 2. The genuineness of the occurrence as narrated by the complainant in his complaint petition is entirely against the petitioner no. 1 and nowhere it has been stated that the petitioner no. 2 was also involved in converting the alleged security cheques in her favour. In such circumstances, there being no allegation levelled against the petitioner no. 2 with respect to intention to cheat from the very inception and there being absence of criminal intimidation or defamation against the petitioner no. 2, this application is to be allowed so far as petitioner no. 2 is concerned.

¶22

Further in view of the specific role of petitioner no. 1 and there being two divergent versions with respect to the dishonour/misuse of the cheques which are best left to the trial court to decide, I am not inclined to exercise my inherent powers under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. to quash the criminal proceeding so far as petitioner no. 1 is concerned.

¶23

Accordingly, this application as against the petitioner no. 1 stands rejected. So far as petitioner no. 2 is concerned, the entire criminal proceeding in connection with Complaint Case No. C/1-1360/12 including the order dated 29.06.2012 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1^st class, Jamshedpur is quashed. 10. This application is allowed to the extent mentioned hereinabove.

¶24

(Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J)

¶25

R. Shekhar Cp 3

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

C H Sen and Anr. 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

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

Suman Devi Vs The State Of Jharkhand And Ors.

Chandra Bhan Prasad Vs State of Jharkhand And Anr.

Uma Prasad Chatterjee Vs State of Jharkhand And Anr.