Jharkhand High Court
Kishore Ekka vs The State Of Jharkhand on 23 January, 2014
Author: R.R.Prasad
Bench: R.R.Prasad
In the High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi
Cr.M.P.No.2126 of 2012
Kishore Ekka................................................Petitioner
VERSUS
State of Jharkhand and another.......Opposite Parties
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.R.PRASAD
For the Petitioner :Mr.B.M.Tripathy, Sr. Advocate
For the State :A.P.P
For the O.P.No.2 : Mr.Sumeet Gadodia, Advocate
05/ 23.01.14. This application has been filed for quashing of the order dated 31.07.2012 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, 1 st class, Ranchi in Complaint Case No.1917 of 2011 whereby and whereunder cognizance of the offence punishable under Sections 406, 420, 467, 468/34 of the Indian Penal Code was taken against the petitioner.
It is the case of the complainant-opposite party no.2 that the complainant is a charitable Society engaged in imparting education to the people of Simdega. It is under the administrative control of the Simdega Catholic Diocese. Rev. Joseph Minz, accused no.1 was a Bishop at Simdega Diocese. Being Bishop, he was also President of the Society and was chief functionary of the Society. He superannuated on 10.4.2008. Thereafter Bishop Rt. Rev. Vincent Barwa took over the charge on 11.4.2008.
It has been alleged that said Rev.Joseph Minz in connivance with the petitioner (accused no.2 ) and accused no.3 misappropriated huge money of the Society which had been received in the form of grant and donation from the people at large.
In this regard, it has been alleged that accused persons in connivance with each other did open two bank accounts in the name of complainant Society. One account was opened in Indian Overseas Bank, Purulia Road, Ranchi in the year 2006 being account no.6665. The other bank account was opened by accused no.1 after he superannuated in the Bank of India, Jharkhand High Court Branch, Ranchi on 3.3.2009 as account no.39. Those two accounts though opened in the name of the Society but it was being operated by accused no.1 and whatever transactions were there, it were for his personal gain. Only when details of the account was obtained by the complainant, it could be known to the Society that there has been huge misappropriation. It was detected that a sum of Rs.9.5 lakhs had been given to the petitioner. That apart, the amount which was received in the account of Indian Overseas Bank was withdrawn by the accused no.1 in connivance with this petitioner and other accused persons.
Further it has been alleged that accused no.1 had entered into fraudulent contract with some individuals for construction of certain administrative buildings. The petitioner was one of the signatories as witness to the said agreement. In course of time, on account of commission of offence, Samridhi Builder had lodged a case.
Further it has been alleged that the accused persons by forging document represented himself as Head of the Society and then entered into an agreement with other accused persons whereby the petitioner and other accused persons played key role. Thus, it has been alleged that accused persons committed offence of forgery as well as criminal breach of trust and also cheating.
On such complaint, when cognizance of the offence as aforesaid was taken, vide order dated 31.07.2012, it was challenged.
Mr.Tripathy, learned Sr. counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that this petitioner had been made accused along with Joseph Minz, who at one point of time was the Bishop at Simdega on the allegation that two bank accounts were opened in the name of complainant Society. The said accounts were being operated by the accused persons, still it has been alleged that said Josheph Minz in connivance with other accused persons including the petitioner misappropriated huge amount of the Society though there has been absolutely no allegation about the role being played by this petitioner in the operation of the account.
It was further submitted that it has been alleged that the petitioner was one of the signatories to the agreement executed in between Joseph Minz and Samridhi Builder but that itself does not speak about any culpability. Moreover, the petitioner had lodged a case against the complainant and Joseph Minz as they by duping the petitioner and others had collected huge amount when it was found by the petitioner that the money had been collected fraudulently and only then the petitioner has been made accused in this case along with Jopesh Minz.
Under the circumstances, order taking cognizance is fit to be quashed.
Mr.Gadodia, learned counsel appearing for the complainant- opposite party no.2 submits that before the present Bishop took over the charge of the Dioceses of Simdega on 11.4.2008, the accused Rev.Josheph Minz was the Bishop of Simdega Catholic Diocese and in that capacity, he was President of the Society.
Due to administrative exigency, Governing Body in its meeting authorized Rev.Josheph Minz to function as Chief Functionary of the Society but that authorization was with a rider that he cannot exercise the power which was prejudicial to the interest of the Society and Dioceses. On account of such authorization, Rev.Josheph Minz (accused no.1) in connivance with this petitioner and other accused entered into several transactions and thereby they received huge amount for their personal gain. However, when present Bishop Rt. Rev. Vincent Barwa started functioning full-fledgedly, it could be detected that Rt. Rev. Joseph Minz without there being any authority had entered into several transactions with other persons and had opened account in the name of the Society by committing forgery.
In this regard, it was submitted that authorization given to Joseph Minz had been recalled on 3.4.2009, still he entered into an agreement with several persons, which was detrimental to the interest of the Society and the petitioner was one of the signatories to that agreement, though he had no authority to enter into such kind of agreement.
Further it was submitted that though authorization to function as Chief Functionary was revoked in April, 2009, account was opened thereafter on the basis of document relating to authorization which was admittedly not there and as such, accused persons created false and fabricated document.
Further it was submitted that other circumstances are also there which go to show that the petitioner was in connivance with Joseph Minz.
Having heard learned counsel appearing for the parties, it does appear that according to the petitioner, Rev.Joseph Minz may have opened account without there being any authority in the name of the Society and made transactions but in such act, the petitioner has never been alleged to have played any role and thereby offence of forgery or misappropriation is not made out.
On the other hand, the stand which has been taken on behalf of the opposite party no.2 is that the said Rev. Joseph Minz had opened two accounts without there being any authority upon falsification of a document and that he had entered into several transaction which was prejudicial to the interest of the Society and in one of the transactions, the petitioner was one of the signatories, though he had had knowledge that Rev.Joseph Minz has no authority and further stand is that accused no.1 in connivance with the petitioner and other accused persons has misappropriated the amount.
In such event, the order taking cognizance never warrants to be quashed. Hence, this application stands dismissed.
(R.R.Prasad,J.)