Chattisgarh High Court
Sandeep Pandey vs M/S Shivam Builders And Developers on 19 September, 2023
Author: Ramesh Sinha
Bench: Ramesh Sinha
Neutral Citation
2023:CGHC:23192
1
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
CRMP No. 378 of 2017
Sandeep Pandey S/o Shri Vinod Pandey Aged About 35 Years Partner- M/
s Shivam Builders And Developers, R/o L- 04 , Vinoba Nagar, Bilaspur,
Police Station Tarbahar, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh Civil And Revenue
District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh.
---- Petitioner
Versus
M/s Shivam Builders And Developers Aged About 67 Years Through
Partner Dr. I. D. Kalwani, Aged 67 Years, S/o Late M. M. Kalwani, R/o
Saket Apartment, Agrasen Chowk, Bilaspur, Police Station Civil Lines,
District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh.
---- Respondent
(Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. Y.C. Sharma, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. Ajay Chandra, Advocate.
For Respondents : None present.
Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice
Order on Board
19/09/2023
1. The present CRMP has been filed by the petitioner with the following prayer:
"It is, therefore, prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to quash the criminal proceedings pending against the petitioner in the court of Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Neutral Citation 2023:CGHC:23192 2 Bilaspur as Criminal Case No. 6263/2016 registered under Sections 406, 420, 467 & 471 of the IPC."
2. The instant petition is being preferred by the petitioner challenging the legality & validity of the impugned order dated 10.02.2017, passed by Sessions Judge, Session Division, Bilaspur in Criminal Revision No. 134/2016, affirming the order dated 27.06.2016 passed by the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bilaspur in Criminal Complaint Case No. 6263 of 2016 (Ms. Shivam Builders & Developers v. Sandeep Pandey), wherein learned trial Court has registered a criminal complaint case against the petitioner for commission of offence under Section 406, 420, 467, 468 and 471 of the IPC.
3. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner and respondent entered into an agreement of partnership on 01.12.2006 for construction of homes and the firm, named and styled as Shivam Builders & Developers and land was purchased from one Arvind Grover for construction of Shivam City Phase-I. Both the petitioner & respondent invested money for the same and people of the locality invested money for getting house/flats. The petitioner is maintaining proper record of the aforesaid work but the respondent/complainant filed a complaint before the trial Court alleging that the petitioner has misappropriated money invested by him and again change the mode of withdrawal from the ICICI Bank where the money was deposited and the trial Court without going to the proper appreciation of the facts registered the case against the petitioner contrary to factual matrix and legal aspect of the matter. He submits that as the petitioner is performing his part of contract bonafidely and doing good for customers, the order of the trial Court is liable to be reversed and the documents filed by the respondent may be sent to Neutral Citation 2023:CGHC:23192 3 handwriting expert for his opinion.
4. None for the respondent to make is submission.
5. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and perused the documents filed along with the petition and other material available on record with utmost circumspection.
6. Learned trial Court, vide its order dated 27.06.2016, has directed to register a criminal case against the petitioner for commission of aforesaid offences holding that the respondent has invested his money in partnership firm but the petitioner has not accounted for the same and withdrawn money from the Bank after changing mode of operation of Bank and committed breath of trust, which has been affirmed by the revisional Court by its impugned order 10.02.2017 by dismissing the revision preferred by the petitioner, which is finding of fact based on material available on record.
7. From and perusal of record, it appears that no document whatsoever was signed by the respondent for changing mode of operation, which was to be operated by both the parties and thereby prima-facie offence of forgery and cheated was made out against the petitioner. In this case, there is ample evidence against the petitioner that he has withdrawn money from the account which was jointly opened by both the parties. There is also prima-facie evidence against the petitioner that he has changed mode of operation, which was earlier to be operated by both the parties and by changing mode of operation single handed transaction were made from the Bank and that constitutes offence and breach of trust, cheating and forgery. Thus, this Court is of the opinion that concurrent finding recorded by the trial Court, as affirmed by the revisional Court, is a finding of fact based on material on record, which does not call for any interference.
Neutral Citation 2023:CGHC:23192 4 8 Accordingly, the Cr.M.P., being devoid of substance, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. However, the trial Court is directed to conclude the trial of Criminal Complaint Case No. 6263/2016 expeditiously, if the same has not been concluded till now.
Sd/-
(Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice amita