Madhya Pradesh High Court
Fakhruddin @ Ukkin Baba vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh Judgement ... on 11 November, 2013
Criminal Revision No. 1046/2013
11.11.2013
Shri Ajay Kumar Jain, Advocate for the applicants.
Shri P.K. Chourasia, Public Prosecutor for the State.
Heard finally with the consent of the learned counsel for
the parties.
This revision has been filed by the applicants being
aggrieved by order dated 22.4.2013 passed by JMFC,
Gadarwara, District Narsinghpur in Criminal Case No.
1117/2012 wherein the charges under Sections 420 or 420/34
and 418 of the IPC have been framed against applicant Nos. 1, 2,
3 and 5 and charges under Sections 384, 201 of the IPC and
Sections 4, 5 of the M.P. Riniyon Ka Sanrakshan Adhiniyam,
1937 against applicant No. 4.
The facts, in short, giving rise to this revision are that
respondent No. 2 Mustak Khan @ Fattu had filed a written
report to SHO, P.S. Gadarwara to the effect that applicant Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 5 have committed cheating with him saying that applicant No. 1 is having superstitious powers and he will solve his all the problems and under the garb of aforesaid cheating, the complainant has delivered them a sum of `30,000/- and a golden necklace worth `20,000/-, thus the complainant had given to applicant Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 5 a total sum of `50,000/-. It is alleged against applicant No. 5 that he obtained the signature of complainant on blank cheques. It is further alleged that the applicants took a loan of `4,50,000/- on the name of complainant and recovered Rs. 45,000/- per month from him as interest.
On the basis of aforesaid report a crime has been registered against the applicants and during investigation they have been arrested. After usual investigation, learned JMFC has framed the charges against the applicants as mentioned hereinabove, hence this revision.
Learned counsel for the applicants has submitted that since there was no legal contract or any agreement between applicant Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 5 and the complainant to protect the interest of the complainant in the transaction, therefore, the trial Court has committed illegality in framing the charge under Section 418 of the IPC against applicant Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 5. The trial Court has further committed illegality in framing the charges under Sections 384, 201 of the IPC and Sections 4, 5 of the M.P. Riniyon Ka Sanrakshan Adhiniyam against applicant No.
4. Thus, the impugned order be set aside and the applicants be discharged from the aforesaid charges.
Learned Public Prosecutor for the State has supported the order passed by the trial Court.
I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and gone through the case diary specially the statements of Mustak, Prakash Chand Soni, Sunil Kumar Shrivastava, Mehmood Khan, Arun Badkur, Sheikh Babu, Sheikh Harun, Kamlesh, Sheru Khan etc. recorded under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C. and other material on record. It reveals that applicant Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 5 have fraudulently or dishonestly induced the complainant to deliver money to them, as a result of which the complainant delivered them a sum of `30,000/- and a necklace worth `20,000/-, thus, there is strong prima facie evidence against applicant Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 5 for the offence punishable under Section 420 or 420/34 of the IPC. Further, there is strong prima facie evidence against applicant No. 4 Bhanu Pratap that he put the complainant under the fear and threatened him that he will crush him by bus and obtained money from him and dishonestly induced him to deliver valuable security like cheques and also took his signatures on the blank cheques, which were utilized by the applicants. Thus, in my opinion, the trial Court has rightly framed the charges under Section 420 or 420/34 of the IPC against applicant Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 5 and under Sections 384, 201 of the IPC and Sections 4, 5 of M.P. Riniyon Ka Sanrakshan Adhiniyam against applicant No. 4.
So far as charge under Section 418 of the IPC framed against applicant Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 5 is concerned, certainly applicant Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 5 did not enter into any contract with complainant to protect his interest. On the contrary looking to the involvement of the complainant in the transaction, he also appears to be a greedy person. In these circumstances, there is no prima facie case under Section 418 of the IPC against applicant Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 5. The trial Court has committed illegality in framing the charge under Section 418 of the IPC against applicant Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 5, same is liable to be set aside.
Consequently, the revision is partly allowed. Charge under Section 420 or 420/34 of the IPC framed against applicant Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 5 and charges under Sections 384, 201 of the IPC and Sections 4, 5 of M.P. Riniyon Ka Sanrakshan Adhiniyam framed against applicant No. 4 are hereby affirmed. Charge under Section 418 of the IPC framed against applicant Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 5 is hereby set aside. The applicant Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 5 are discharged from the charge under Section 418 of the IPC.
(G.S.Solanki) Judge PB