Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Ramratan Biyani S/O Shri Bhagwan Biyani vs State Of Rajasthan (2025:Rj-Jp:22955) on 14 May, 2025
Author: Ashok Kumar Jain
Bench: Ashok Kumar Jain
[2025:RJ-JP:22955]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 829/2024
1. Ramratan Biyani S/o Shri Bhagwan Biyani, R/o Azad
Chowk, Modi Mohalla, Narena P.s. Narena, District Jaipur
At Present R/o C-102, Ramkrishan Apartment,
Mansarovar, P.s. Shipra Path, Jaipur
2. Smt. Deepa Biyani W/o Shri Ramratan Biyani, R/o Azad
Chowk, Modi Mohalla, Narena P.s. Narena, District Jaipur
At Present R/o C-102, Ramkrishan Apartment,
Mansarovar, P.s. Shipra Path, Jaipur
3. Bhoomi Maheshwari D/o Shri Ramratan Biyani, R/o Azad
Chowk, Modi Mohalla, Narena P.s. Narena, District Jaipur
At Present R/o C-102, Ramkrishan Apartment,
Mansarovar, P.s. Shipra Path, Japur
----Petitioners
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through P.p
2. Parmanand Bhardwaj S/o Late Shri Gopi Lal Bhardwaj,
R/o 119/348, Agarwal Farm P.w. Shipra Path, Mansarovar,
Jaipur (Since deceased through his son).
2/1. Vikas Bhardwaj S/o Parmanand Bhardwaj, Aged About 52
Years, R/o Flat No. C-103, C-Block, Ramkrishna
Apartment, B-2 Byepass, Mansarovar, Jaipur.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Poonam Chand Sharma
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vijay Singh Yadav, PP
Mr. Amitabh Vijaywargiya
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR JAIN
Order
14/05/2025
1. Instant S.B. Criminal Revision Petition is preferred by petitioners-accused Ramratan Biyani, Deepa Biyani and Bhoomi Maheshwari aggrieved from order dated 06.03.2024 in Sessions (Downloaded on 13/06/2025 at 11:02:39 PM) [2025:RJ-JP:22955] (2 of 8) [CRLR-829/2024] Case No.07/2023, whereby petitioners were charged for offence under Sections 420, 406, 411, 413, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B IPC.
2. Learned counsel for petitioners while placing reliance upon grounds of revision petition submitted that petitioners are innocent persons and they were falsely implicated in the instant case at the whims of complainant. He further submitted that the facts of the instant case clearly indicate that it is a purely commercial and business transaction, wherein due to some dispute between complainant and petitioner No.1, a criminal complaint was filed to settle the dispute. Learned counsel has further submitted that the facts narrated in complaint and also in statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., the complainant has acknowledged receipt of profit and also the information about the transaction at MCX, on several occasions. He further submitted that in a commodity trading, there is a regular and constant variation in the prices of commodity, and this fluctuation is mainly due to variation in prices at international level, and same is also affected from availability of stock and the demand. He further submitted that the complainant has verified his accounts, and also remained well informed.
3. He further referred the ingredients under Section 415 of IPC and submitted that in order to frame a charge under Section 420 IPC, it is necessary that the essential ingredients such as fraudulent and dishonest intention should be proved and same should be with intention to cheat complainant. He also referred the provisions of Section 405 and submitted that in order to frame a charge under Section 406 IPC, it is necessary that there must be (Downloaded on 13/06/2025 at 11:02:39 PM) [2025:RJ-JP:22955] (3 of 8) [CRLR-829/2024] some entrustment of property, which would be dishonestly misappropriated, but there is no evidence to connect the petitioners. He further submitted that there is no evidence to show that the petitioners are habitual in committing offence like 411 IPC, therefore, they cannot be charged for offence under Section 413 IPC. He further referred the status of petitioners and submitted that petitioner No.2 is a housewife, whereas petitioner No.3 is a student and both were not aware about transaction between petitioner No.3 and complainant. He also referred the material on record and submitted that initially a case was registered under Sections 420, 406 and 120-B IPC, but without verification of any detail or record, charges were framed against the petitioners. At last, he submitted that role and involvement of petitioners No.2 and 3 is not proved from evidence on record, and moreover charge under Sections 411, 413 and 120-B IPC are also not made out against any of the petitioner.
4. Aforesaid contentions were opposed by learned Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for complainant.
5. Learned counsel for complainant while referring record of the case, has submitted that the petitioners after hatching a criminal conspiracy have posed as an authorized broker to deal on MCX, but in fact, none of the petitioners was having any licence to act as a broker or sub-broker on MCX. He further submitted that to induce the complainant and his family, the petitioners have edited and fabricated the messages both text and whatsapp, and sent to complainant so that complainant may continue to trust and believe the petitioners to invest more money. He also submitted (Downloaded on 13/06/2025 at 11:02:39 PM) [2025:RJ-JP:22955] (4 of 8) [CRLR-829/2024] that when enquiry was made about the firm of petitioners then they were not only manipulated, but also misguided the complainant, which resulted into further losses. He further submitted that there were 10 cases against the petitioners, and in such case Section 413 IPC is attracted and petitioners are habitual in committing the financial frauds.
6. Learned counsel for complainant referred the provisions of Sections 410 and 413 IPC and submitted that on basis of material placed on record, which can be proved during course of evidence of prosecution, the charge under Section 413 is made out. He has further referred judgment in case of Ajay Singhal Vs. State of Rajasthan S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No.712/2016 (Order dated 23.08.2016) and State of Rajasthan Vs. Waman Narayan Gheeya & Ors. 2007 Cr.LJ 3614 (Raj.) and submitted that the basic ingredients under Sections 406, 420, 413 and 120-B IPC are made out, and the Trial Court has not committed any error while framing the charges against the petitioners. He further referred the transfer application No.76/2023 filed to transfer a criminal case, which was ultimately withdrawn on 23.05.2024 and submitted that all efforts were made by petitioners to delay the proceedings. He further referred order dated 11.09.2024 in Revision No.42/2024 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge and submitted that the revision of these petitioners were also dismissed. He further placed reliance upon reply and the documents submitted along with reply.
7. Heard learned counsels for the parties and learned Public Prosecutor. Perused the material placed on record and also (Downloaded on 13/06/2025 at 11:02:39 PM) [2025:RJ-JP:22955] (5 of 8) [CRLR-829/2024] considered the judgments as referred by learned counsel for complainant.
8. On basis of a written report lodged by complainant Parmanand Bhardwaj on 22.04.2022, FIR No.282/2022 was registered at P.S. Shipra Path, Jaipur City (South) under Sections 420, 406 and 120-B IPC. In this complaint, all the three petitioners were named. After investigation, police has filed a charge-sheet against the petitioners under Sections 420, 406, 411, 413, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B IPC. After considering the submissions of learned counsels for the parties, the Trial Court has framed charge under Sections 420, 406, 411, 413, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B IPC.
9. The principles of law at the stage of charge were considered by Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of State of Bihar Vs. Ramesh Singh : (1977) 4 SCC 39 and Union of India Vs. Prafulla Kumar Samal & Anr. :(1979) 3 SCC 4 and were referred and relied in case of P. Vijayan Vs. State of Kerala & Anr. : (2010) 2 SCC 398. It was held that at the initial stage, if there is a strong suspicion which leads the Court to think that there is ground for presuming that the accused has committed an offence then it is not open to the Court to say that there is no sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. The presumption of the guilt of the accused which is to be drawn at the initial stage is not in the sense of the law governing the trial of criminal cases in France where the accused is presumed to be guilty unless the contrary is proved. But it is only for the purpose of deciding prima facie case whether the Court should proceed with the trial or not. (Downloaded on 13/06/2025 at 11:02:39 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:22955] (6 of 8) [CRLR-829/2024] The test to determine a prima facie case would depend upon the facts of each case and it is difficult to lay down a rule of universal application.
10. Again in case of State By Karnataka Lokayukta Police Station, Bengaluru Vs. M. R. Hiremath : (2019) 7 SCC 515, Hon'ble Supreme Court while considering several judgments on the issue in a matter relating to the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, has held that the trial court while dealing with an application for discharge at the stage of framing of charge must proceed on the assumption that the material which has been brought on the record by the prosecution is true and evaluate the material in order to determine whether the facts emerging from the material, taken on its face value, disclose the existence of the ingredients necessary to constitute an offence. At this stage, probative value of the materials has to be gone into and the court is not expected to go deep into the matter and hold that the materials would not warrant a conviction.
11. A similar opinion was also expressed in case of State of Rajasthan Vs. Ashok Kumar Kashyap : (2021) 11 SCC 191 and relied upon in case of Captain Manjit Singh Virdi (Retd.) vs. Hussain Mohammed Shattaf (2023 INSC 555), wherein it was held that at the stage of framing of charge and/or considering discharge application, a mini trial is not permissible. A defence on merits is not to be considered at the stage of framing of charge and / or at the stage of discharge application.
12. Initially a report was registered under Sections 420, 406 and 120-B IPC against the petitioners, but after investigation, a (Downloaded on 13/06/2025 at 11:02:39 PM) [2025:RJ-JP:22955] (7 of 8) [CRLR-829/2024] charge-sheet has been filed under Sections 411 and 413 IPC, as well. In case of State of Rajasthan Vs. Waman Narayan Gheeya & Ors. (Supra), a Coordinate Bench while considering Section 413 IPC has observed that if evidence on record with regard to number of cases pending or in which the accused is convicted, Trial Court can frame charge for offence under Section 413 IPC along with Section 411 IPC. The ingredients are proved or not, has to be considered at the time of final adjudication. In case of Ajay Singhal Vs. State of Rajasthan (supra) again the issue pertains to Sections 411 and 413 IPC, and a Coordinate Bench of this Court after considering the other cases has held that at the stage of charge, on basis of record, a charge under Section 413 IPC can be framed, and there is no perversity or illegality.
13. Section 420 of IPC provides for punishment for an offence, where a crime of cheating by dishonestly inducement delivery of property is committed. The offence of cheating is defined under Section 415 of IPC and in order to frame a charge under Section 420 IPC, it is necessary that ingredients as mandated under Section 415 is available on the record. Recently, Sections 415 and 420 of IPC were considered by Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of A.M. Mohan Vs. The State Represented by SHO and Anr. 2024 INSC 233, wherein it was held that dishonest inducement is the sine qua non to attract the provision of Sections 415 and 420 IPC.
14. Similarly, a criminal breach of trust is defined under Section 405 IPC when a person dishonestly misuses or disposes of property entrusted to him and same is punishable under Section (Downloaded on 13/06/2025 at 11:02:39 PM) [2025:RJ-JP:22955] (8 of 8) [CRLR-829/2024] 406 IPC. Herein this case, the complainant has placed several documents on record to show that the petitioners, who were members of a family headed by petitioner No.1, with intention to cheat have impersonated as a broker or sub-broker working on MCX and induced the complainant and his family to deliver money for investment.
15. A very recently, in case of Delhi Race Club (1940) Ltd. Vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh Criminal Appeal No.3114/2024, Hon'ble Supreme Court has dealt with it is detail and quite categorically highlighted the issue arises therefrom and further expressed lake of clarity among Police Officers regarding the legal distinction between criminal breach of trust and cheating.
16. Having considered the entirety of facts and circumstances and also the material on record, it is not possible for us to hold a roving enquiry in a complex matter relating to cheating, criminal breach of trust, fabrication of document and using the fabricated documents for the purpose of cheating etc. with element of criminal conspiracy, therefore, looking to the material on record, the Trial Court has rightly framed the charges and there is no perversity or illegality in the order to frame charges. Hence, the revision petition sans merits and is hereby liable to be dismissed.
17. In view of discussion made herein above, the revision petition preferred by petitioners is hereby dismissed with pending application, if any.
(ASHOK KUMAR JAIN),J GAURAV /88 (Downloaded on 13/06/2025 at 11:02:39 PM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)