Jharkhand High Court
Jitendra Nath Burdhan @ Jitendra Nath ... vs The State Of Jharkhand And Others on 5 April, 2023
Author: Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi
Bench: Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND, RANCHI
----
W.P.(Cr.) No. 192 of 2015
----
Jitendra Nath Burdhan @ Jitendra Nath Burman, son of late Shivnath Burdhan, resident of Barhait Bazar, P.O. and P.S. Barhait, District Sahibganj .... Petitioner
-- Versus --
The State of Jharkhand and Others .... Respondents
----
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI
---
For the Petitioner :- Mrs. Jasvinder Mazumdar, Advocate
For the State :- Mr. Gaurang Jajodia, Advocate
----
11/05.04.2023 Heard Mrs. Jasvinder Mazumdar, the learned counsel for the
petitioner and Mr. Gaurang Jajodia, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent State.
This petition has been filed for quashing of the order dated 20.8.2014 passed by learned Principal Sessions Judge, Sahibganj in Criminal Revision No.66 of 2013 whereby the criminal revision filed by the petitioner against the order dated 13.08.2013 passed by learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Sahibganj in connection with P.C.R Case No.22 of 2013 has been dismissed and prayer has also been made for quashing of the order dated 13.8.2013 passed by the learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Sahibganj whereby Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate has been pleased to dismiss the complaint under section 203 Cr.P.C pending in the court of learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Dhanbad.
The complainant has filed the complaint case alleging therein that the complainant Jitrendra Nath Bardhan was elected as member Secretary for Barhait Lamps in general meeting held on 22.11.2011. In the same meeting Bhola Tudu was elected as Chairman of Barhait Lamps. All the works of Lamps are performed by joint signatures of Chairman and Member Secretary. Money was deposited and withdrawn from banks by joint signatures of Chairman and Member Secretary of 2 Lamps. All four accused persons, under conspiracy have obtained forged signatures of members and handed over work of member Secretary of Lamps to Mukesh Gupta. They have authorized Mukesh Gupta to work for Bank transactions with Bhola Tudu. This proposal was accepted in general meeting of Lamps on 8.8.2012. Decision of the meeting was communicated to all concerned banks on 14.11.2012. Chairman, Bhola Tudu and Member Secretary Mukesh Gupta had withdrawn Rs.Twenty Five Lacs from co-operative Central Bank, Sahibganj and grabbed that amount. All four accused persons have embezzled entitle money of Lamps. Complainant has further told that Bhola Tudu and Oasis Murmu have marked forged signatures of seven members of Lamps. That document with forged signature was lying with District Cooperative Officer. Complainant has reported this matter to District Cooperative Officer and Joint Registrar, Cooperative Societies but no action was taken.
Mrs. Mazumdar, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the learned court has erred by not taking cognizance. She submits that once the complaint case is filed the learned court is required to proceed under section 202 CrP.C and the learned court without considering the spirit of that section has refused to take cognizance which is against the mandate of law. She submits that there is prima facie materials and in that view of the matter the order may kindly be quashed.
Mr. Jajodia, the learned counsel for the respondent State submits that the learned court has rightly dismissed the proceeding after considering the spirit of section 202 and 203 of the Cr.P.C.
The learned court looking into materials on record including the solemn affirmation as well as the enquiry witnesses found that the complainant has not been able to show that the accused persons have obtained forged signature of seven members and no name was given to 3 put full signature as has been forged in general meeting on 18.8.2012. The learned Court has also come to the conclusion that it has not been demonstrated that 25 lacs was withdrawn from Bank and it was embezzeled by him and no details of that fact in support of documents were placed before the court. The learned Court further found that the law of cooperative governed by various rules and regulations of cooperative society and if any irregularity is there, the organization is required to raise the same before the appropriate authority of the State and accordingly the complaint case was dismissed. The learned revisional court has gone through the facts and has also looked into the enquiry witnesses as well as the solemn affirmation and has come to the conclusion that there is no illegality and that is how the petition has been dismissed. There is no doubt that under section 202 and 203 Cr.P.C the court is required to enquire into the prima facie case and if the prima facie case is made out under section 202 Cr.P.C the learned Court may proceed, however prima facie case is not made out the case may be dismissed under section 203 Cr.P.C. Both the learned courts have examined and looked into the enquiry witnesses and solemn affirmation of the complainant and came to the conclusion that the complainant has not made out prima facie case and if the prima facie case is not made out the learned court has rightly refused to take cognizance. The revisional court order is also well speaking order. There is concurrent finding of the learned two courts on this point and in that view of the matter if there is no injustice is done to the petitioner in garb of section 482 Cr.P.C, the second revision is not maintainable.
In view of the above reasons and analysis W.P.(Cr.) No.192 of 2015 is dismissed.
( Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.) SI/,