Jharkhand High Court
Phool Chand Sood vs The State Of Jharkhand And Anr on 29 April, 2016
Author: Ananda Sen
Bench: Ananda Sen
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Rev. No. 1159 of 2015
Phool Chand Sood, son of late Tirath Nath Sood,
resident of House No.1334, Sector 28,
P.O. & P.S. Faridabad,Town Faridabad,
District Faridabad (Haryana) .. ... Petitioner.
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. Prabir Kumar Roy, son of late Gopal Chandra Roy,
resident of Krishna Apartment, 5th Floor, No. 'C',
RangeTand, P.O. & P.S. Dhanbad,
District Dhanbad (Jharkhand) ..... ... ... ...Opp. Parties.
------
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANDA SEN
------
For the Petitioner : Mr. Indrajit Sinha, Advocate.
For the State : Mr. Deepak Kumar, A.P.P.
For the Opp. Party No.2 : Mr. Ashutosh Anand, Advocate.
.........
02 /29.04.2016: This revision application is directed against the order dated 20.08.2015 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Dhanbad, in C.P. Case No. 1352 of 2010, whereby the petition filed by the petitioner under section 245 Cr.P.C. for discharge has been rejected.
A complaint was filed by one Prabir Kumar Roy, against the petitioner and others, which was registered as C.P. Case No. 1352 of 2010 for allegedly committing offence under sections 420, 465, 468, 418, 406, 426, 427, 323 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code and for violation of Jharkhand Apartment (Property Regulation & Ownership) Act, 2005.
Vide order dated 21.01.2011 the Court below took cognizance for the offence under sections 418 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code only. Thereafter, before charge evidence was recorded. Vide order dated 22.01.2015 the trial Court rejected the discharge petition filed by the petitioner and found that there are sufficient materials to frame charge against the accused persons under sections 418 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code. Challenging the said order, the petitioner filed Cr. Revision No. 161 of 2015 before this Hon'ble court. This Hon'ble Court by order dated 31,03.2015 allowed the revision application and remanded the matter to the Court below to pass necessary order on the basis of material and evidence on record after giving opportunity of hearing to the parties. The order dated 22.1.2015 was set aside on the ground that it was cryptic and non-speaking one.
-2-On remand the matter was again heard by the learned trial Court and vide the impugned order dated 20.08.2015 the Court below dismissed the discharge petition filed by the petitioner and has held that there are sufficient materials to frame charge. The said order is impugned in this revision application.
Counsel for the petitioner submits that the Court below has committed serious illegality by not passing reasoned order and, in fact, reiterated the order dated 22.01.2015 which was set aside in Cr. Revision No. 161 of 2015. Learned counsel for the petitioner further argues that there are no sufficient materials on record to come to the conclusion that the charges can be framed against the petitioner for the offence under sections 418 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code. Learned counsel further submits that the order will show that the Magistrate has not applied its mind while passing the impugned order.
Learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 submits that there is no illegality in the impugned order and the Court below has considered all aspects of the matter before dismissing the application.
I have heard the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the respective parties and have gone through the impugned order.
The allegation leveled in the complaint petition is that the petitioner is the Director of M/s S.M. Plaza Private Ltd. It has been alleged that this petitioner and others entered into an agreement for sale of a flat with the complainant on the 4th floor of the building under the name and style of "Krishna Apartment". It has been further alleged in the complaint that the complainant has paid a huge amount to the accused persons. It is further alleged that after entering into the agreement, the accused persons pressurized the complainant to accept a flat on the 5th floor instead of 4th floor as the 4th floor was already allotted to other persons. The complainant objected, but the objection failed. Since the complainant was in urgent need of accommodation he got a sale deed registered through the accused persons in respect of flat on the 5th floor. It is further alleged that later on he came to know that 5th floor was not constructed as per the sanctioned plan and was illegally constructed, thus, he was cheated. It is further alleged that when the complainant objected to the illegal act of the -3- accused persons he was abused and threatened and the accused persons wanted to assault him also.
The Court below took cognizance of the offence under sections 418 and 323 of the Indian Penal code. Four witnesses were examined before charge. The witness deposed that sale deed was executed by this petitioner being a Director of M/s S.M. Plaza Private Ltd. Company. It further transpires from the evidence before charge that at the time of execution of agreement Rs. 1,50,000/- was paid by the complainant. The witness further states that at the time of agreement they had booked flat on the 4th floor, but the complainant was forced to buy the flat on the 5th floor and the 5th floor was illegally constructed. All the witnesses have stated that the signature of this petitioner appears on the agreement. C.W.4, Prabir Roy, who is the complainant further stated before the Court that Phool Chand Sood and others have assaulted him.
Section 245 of the Cr.P.C. provides that if, upon taking all the evidence referred to in section 244, the Magistrate considers, for reasons to be recorded, that no case against the accused has been made out, which if unrebutted, would warrant his conviction, the Magistrate shall discharge him.
In the instant case, I find that the Court below has found that there are materials which have come during the course of evidence before charge, which suggests that if those statements goes unrebutted the accused can be convicted.
I am in total agreement with the finding of the Court below. The witnesses before charge have deposed that the complainant was forced to buy a flat on the 5th floor, which was illegally constructed. It has also come in evidence that earlier there was an agreement for sale of flat at the 4th floor, but later on a flat at the 5th floor was sold to the complainant. There is also an allegation of assault upon the complainant. These statements, which are available on record and have been recorded under section 244 Cr.P.C., are sufficient to frame charge against the petitioner. Thus, there appears no ground for interference in the impugned order dated 20.08.2015 -4- passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Dhanbad, in C.P. Case No. 1352 of 2010.
This revision application, thus, stands dismissed. Interim relief, if any, stands vacated.
( ANANDA SEN , J) Sharma/-