Madhya Pradesh High Court
Prakashchand Chopta vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 3 September, 2014
M.Cr.C. No. 27/2014 (Prakashchand Chopra and another Vs. State of M.P. ) 3.9.2014 Shri Manish Datt, learned senior counsel with Shri Bhupendra Kaurav, learned counsel for the petitioners.
Shri R. S. Shukla, learned Panel Lawyer for the State. Present petition is directed seeking quashment of the criminal proceedings of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Sagar at Regular Criminal Case No. 5217/2010.
According to prosecution, on 13.2.2009 on the basis of report of one Smt. Pushpa Mishra and 12 others at police station Gopalganj District Sagar, a case was registered under Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioners and their son and daughter-in-law for the allegations that during the period 8.6.2007 to 13.6.2008 they received lacs of rupees from each of the complainants saying that their V.R.S. amount of MPSRTC would be a safe investment and they will get good interest from their company. Co-accused Kapil Chopra gave cheques in advance to gain the faith of the investors and also expressed guarantee of the present petitioners that they are citizens of good reputation and petitioner no.1 had worked as Insurance Officer also.
Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that in the present case main accused one Kapil Chopra and his wife Rubi Chopra those who have received entire money of the investors and Kapil Chopra has signed the cheques that have been bounced. Kapil Chopra and Rubi Chopra have absconded also and still they are not traceable. Learned counsel submits that against the petitioners no specific allegations have been made regarding receiving of the investors money, hence there is no question of breach of trust of the investor's money. Petitioners have been implicated in this case because they are parents of the main accused persons. Charge sheet is based on the false, frivolous and imaginary facts against the petitioners and this continuation would amount to abuse of process of law. Learned counsel further submits that in the present case Nisha Shud was the main witness, who happens to be a close relative of the petitioners. Because of her pursuation and instigation, complainants came to the co-accused and deposited their money.
Learned Panel Lawyer for the State submits that each of the investors has deposited the money by opening his account on the basis of account opening form which was duly signed by the petitioners also along with main co- accused Kapil Chopra. In the oral statement of all witnesses recorded under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C., it has been specifically come on record that petitioners also interacted each of the witnesses and assured the safe interest and refund of the money.
Considering the aforesaid, it appears that it is a matter of appreciation of evidence as to what extent petitioners acted in favour of the main co-accused to receive the money of investors which was not refunded to them till date. Main accused persons are son and daughter-in-law of the petitioners who are still absconding. Account opening form was duly signed by the petitioners also along with the main accused. In such a situation, it does not appear to be an instance of abuse of process of law. Name of the petitioners also appeared in the FIR. Their active participation is apparent from the face of the record. Whatever points have been raised in the present petition, at the most can be said to be relevant at the time of framing of the charge. Evidence of Nisha Shud and other prosecution witnesses may be and will be appreciated during trial. It is true the main accused is co-accused Kapil Chopra, but involvement and participation of the present petitioners has also been reflected in the charge sheet. No case of quashment is made out.
Without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, this petition stands dismissed.
(Tarun Kumar Kaushal) Judge AD/