Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

for short) and Sections 420 read with Section 511 of Indian Penal Code.

2. Though the petitioner was initially praying for setting aside the entire charge sheet, during the course of hearing of the present petition, the learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is restricting his petition only to the extent of prayer clause (D), which reads thus :

"(D) In the alternative the action/F.I.R. to the extent of Section 420/511 I.P.C. may be quashed with all steps investigation taken under it."

The learned counsel further submitted that there were some other persons whose names were not mentioned in the directions so given by the learned Principal District Judge and who have never made such complaint to the Principal District Judge, volunteered before the J.M.F.C., for giving their statements and they had made certain allegations against the petitioner accusing him of illegally carrying the business of money lending and thereby exploiting the persons like them. The learned counsel further submitted that after recording the statements of all such persons, even the learned J.M.F.C., give any direction for registering offence against the petitioner under Section 420 read with 511 of Indian Penal Code. The learned counsel reiterated that neither the Assistant Registrar, Cooperative Societies found it necessary to lodge an F.I.R. for the offence under Sections 420 read with 511 of Indian Penal Code. The learned counsel further submitted that it was the investigating officer who at his own added Sections 420 and 511 of Indian Penal Code though there was no such material on record, with the only intention that he could then arrest the petitioner and also seek his police custody. The learned counsel submitted that the investigating officer succeeded in his said intention and he also could obtain police custody of the petitioner for few days. The learned counsel taking us through the entire Judgment cwp55.13 material filed along with the charge sheet submitted that no evidence has come on record so as to charge sheet the petitioner for offence punishable under Section 420 read with 511 of Indian Penal Code. The learned counsel submitted that even if all the allegations allegedly made out by the persons whose statements have been recorded by the investigating officer are taken as it is and accepted to be gospel truth, even then no offence can be said to have been made against the petitioner under Section 420 read with 511 of Indian Penal Code. The learned counsel further submitted that all allegations allegedly made against the petitioner are only in respect of violation of the provisions of the 1946 Act and the Rules framed thereunder.

4. The learned Counsel also relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Raj Kapoor .vrs. Laxman (AIR 1980 SC 605).

The learned counsel submitted that in the aforesaid matter, the Hon'ble Judgment cwp55.13 Supreme Court had held that the provisions of Cinematograph Act would prevail over the Indian Penal Code since Cinematograph Act is a special code, whereas Indian Penal Code is a general law. The learned counsel submitted that same principle would apply in the present case also. The learned Counsel also placed his reliance on two more judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court, first in case of Dalip Kaur and others .vrs. Jagnar Singh and another (AIR 2009 SC 3191) and in case of Ramesh Dutt .vrs. State of Punjab and others (2009 DGLS (soft) 938). The learned counsel also cited two more judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court first in case of Veer Prakash Sharma .vrs. Anil Kumar Agrawal and another (AIR 2007 SCW 4816) and in case of Inder Mohan Goswami and another .vrs. State of Uttaranchal and others (Air 2008 SC 251). Relying on these judgments the learned Counsel vehemently submitted that when the special statute i.e. the 1946 Act is capable of taking care and cognizance of the acts alleged against the present petitioner, there was no reason for the investigating officer to also prosecute the petitioner for the offence under Section 420 read with 511 of Indian Penal Code. The learned counsel thereafter taking us through the various statements recorded during the course of investigation submitted that from none of these statements an inference can be drawn that the petitioner was having an intention at the very inception to cause any wrongful loss to the said persons or any wrongful gain for himself and in Judgment cwp55.13 such circumstances even on merits, no offence has been made out against the petitioner under Section 420 read with 511 of the Indian Penal Code.

7. We have consciously considered the submissions advanced on behalf of the petitioner as well as the respondents. We have also perused the entire material on record. The learned A.P.P. has made available the investigation papers and the entire material filed along with the chargesheet submitted against the petitioner. We have gone through the said material also. As stated herein above, initially the petitioner was challenging the whole of the first information report and the subsequent chargesheet filed on the basis of the said first information report for the offences punishable under the Act of 1946 as well as under Section 420 read with Section 511 of the Indian Penal Code. However, during the course of hearing the petitioner has ultimately restricted his prayer only to the extent of setting aside the chargesheet under Section 420 r/w 511 of the Indian Penal Code. In such circumstances, we had not indulged in making any discussion insofar as the prosecution of the petitioner for the offence under the Act of 1946 are concerned.