MCRC-18556-2015 (B.S. SHARMA Vs NARENDRA PRASAD MISHRA) 23-11-2015 Shri Parag S. Chaturvedi, counsel for the applicant. Shri G. S. Thakur, Panel Lawyer for the State/respondent no.2. Heard on admission. The applicant has challenged the order dated 11.8.2015 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Bhopal in Criminal Case No. 140/2015 whereby, the revision filed by the applicant was dismissed. The applicant has also challenged the order dated 19.1.2015 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhopal in Criminal Case No.728/2008 whereby, the application of the applicant was dismissed and only a charge of offence under Section 406 of I.P.C was framed against the respondent no.1. Facts of the case in short, are that, the applicant/complainant had lodged a criminal complaint before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhopal that the respondent no.1 had collected some amount from various consumers and did not deposit in the office whereas, he was President of Akhil Bharatiya Upbhokta Congress, Branch Sidhi for some time. In the complaint it was mentioned that the respondent no.1 has committed an offence under Section 406 and 420 of I.P.C. The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhopal directed an investigation under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. The Police of Police Station, T.T. Nagar, Bhopal registered an offence under Section 406 of I.P.C and after investigation a charge sheet was filed of offence under Section 406 of
I.P.C and trial Court has framed the charge of Section 406 of I.P.C. After considering the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, it appears that the applicant tries to set a case of Section 420,
467 and 469 of I.P.C. After considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, no complaint was filed for any offence under Sections 467 or 469 of I.P.C. Even before the revisionary Court it was not mentioned that offence under Section 469 of I.P.C shall be made out. Initially, the complaint was filed for offence under Sections 420 and 406 of I.P.C that the respondent no.1 recovered various amount from various consumers and he did not deposit the recovered amount in the account of the committee. When receipt was issued by the respondent no.1 then original receipt must be with the consumers and being an existing President of Akhil Bharatiya Upbhokta Congress, the applicant must know that receipts were forged. A forged receipt book was obtained by the respondent no.1 and such receipts were used but in initial complaint, no such allegation was made. At present since original receipt books are missing such allegations are made by the applicant. It is not shown by the applicant as to whether a receipt book of a particular format was issued to the respondent for collection of amount from the consumers. When the receipt books are missing, such allegation has no value when it was not made at the time of filing of the complaint. Only on the fact that original receipt books are missing, prima facie allegation made by the applicant cannot be accepted that respondent no.1 got forged receipt books prepared and thereafter, he issued the receipts. Such allegation was not made by him before the Police and therefore, the Police did not investigate about the fact of forgery and no charge sheet was filed for offence under Section 467 of
I.P.C. The trial Court as well as the revisionary Court has committed no error if charge under Section 467 or 469 of I.P.C was not framed. Prima facie if it is not proved that the respondent got forged receipt books prepared then he was entitled to collect the funds from various consumers and if he collected the funds and issued a receipt then no ingredient of offence of cheating is attracted in doing so. Only offence remains against the applicant is that he collected the funds and misappropriated the same and therefore, prima facie offence under Section 406 of I.P.C is made out against the respondent. The applicant has moved an application that on the charge sheet filed by the Police a white fluid was pasted upon a word which was added after description of offence under Section 406 of I.P.C. C.S.P., T.T. Nagar vide a letter dated 12.12.2012 cleared the position. Hence, it cannot be said that word 420 was hidden by the SHO at the time of filing of the charge sheet. However, after getting report from the SDOP the trial Court has framed the charges and the revisionary Court thereafter, dismissed the revision filed by the applicant. Under these circumstances, where element of cheating is not prima facie established the trial Court has rightly not framed the charge under Section 420 of I.P.C. On the basis of the aforesaid discussion no illegality or perversity is visible in the orders passed by the Courts below and therefore, it is not a case in which the inherent powers of this Court may be invoked in favour of the applicant. Consequently, petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C filed by the applicant B. S. Sharma is hereby dismissed at motion stage. (N.K. GUPTA) JUDGE