IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B.CRIMINAL MISC(PET.) NO. 3125 / 2014 [ENTITY] S/o. Sh. [ENTITY], Resident of C-62, Charamnarayan-Ka-Hattha, Paota, Jodhpur (Raj.) Petitioner Versus 1. [ENTITY]. 2. [ENTITY] S/o. Kanmal, by caste Jain, Resident of B-49, Charamnarayan-Ka-Hattha, Paota, Jodhpur (Raj.). Respondent Connected With S.B.CRIMINAL MISC(PET.) No. 215 / 2015 [ENTITY] S/o. Sh. [ENTITY], Resident of C-62, Charamnarayan-Ka-Hattha, Paota, Jodhpur (Raj.) Petitioner Versus 1. [ENTITY]. 2. [ENTITY] S/o. Kanmal, by caste Jain, Resident of B-49, Charamnarayan-Ka-Hattha, Paota, Jodhpur (Raj.). Respondent S.B.CRIMINAL MISC(PET.) No. 216 / 2015 [ENTITY] W/o. Sh. [ENTITY], Resident of C-62, Charamnarayan-Ka-Hattha, Paota, Jodhpur (Raj.) Petitioner Versus 1. [ENTITY]. 2. [ENTITY] S/o. Kanmal, by caste Jain, Resident of B-49, Charamnarayan-Ka-Hattha, Paota, Jodhpur (Raj.). Respondent S.B.CRIMINAL MISC(PET.) No. 217 / 2015 [ENTITY] S/o. Sh. Champalal Daga, Resident of C-62, Charamnarayan-Ka-Hattha, Paota, Jodhpur (Raj.) Petitioner (2 of 6 ) [[CASE NUMBER]] Versus 1. [ENTITY]. 2. [ENTITY] S/o. Kanmal, by caste Jain, Resident of B-49, Charamnarayan-Ka-Hattha, Paota, Jodhpur (Raj.). Respondent For Petitioners : Mr. [ENTITY]. For Respondents : Mr. [ENTITY]. Mr. [ENTITY], Public Prosecutor. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN BHANSALI
Order 31/01/2017 These petitions have been filed by the petitioners aggrieved against the order dated 31.10.2014 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge No.5, Jodhpur Metro, dismissing the revision petitions filed by the petitioners pertaining to order dated 18.06.2011 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (Economic Offences), Jodhpur, whereby the charges were framed against the petitioners for the offences under [SECTION] and [SECTION] [ACT].
The FIR was registered on an information given by the respondent No.2 with the allegations that he had acquaintance with one [ENTITY] and since the complainant intended to set up his own factory, he approached [ENTITY] in connection with his factory at Boranada, who proposed that his plot measured 20756 square meters, on which, he will give 5000 square meters to the complainant for establishing his factory for a consideration of Rs.50,00,000/-. It was further alleged that said (3 of 6 ) [[CASE NUMBER]] [ENTITY] told him that his firm has taken loan from Rajasthan Financial Corporation ('RFC') and, therefore, the title documents were mortgaged with the said RFC, which would be released on repayment of loan; he was not in a position to repay the loan and if the complainant deposits the loan amount, the documents would be released and the transfer could materialize. It was further alleged that the complainant made enquiries about the dues from the RFC and an agreement was arrived at for transfer of the plot for a consideration of Rs.41,00,000/-, the complainant was assured that out of Rs.50,00,000/- outstanding, the same would be settled for Rs.30,00,000/- as the firm was a Sick Industrial Unit. It was alleged that on account of the said inducement the complainant paid a sum of Rs.5,40,000/-, for which, receipt was given, some other money was also paid, which was recorded on receipt; one [ENTITY], partner of the complainant gave three drafts amounting to Rs.12,00,000/- and thus till 15.06.1999, a sum of Rs.21,00,000/- was paid; on 09.06.2005, a disclaimer in the newspaper appeared regarding the property in question, on which, [ENTITY] was contacted, who resiled from the agreement. Allegations were made against the petitioners also. Based on the allegations, the matter was investigated and a charge-sheet was filed against the petitioners and other accused persons.
At the stage of framing the charges, the petitioners made submissions that no offence is disclosed against the petitioners, however, the trial court by its order dated 1.06.2011, rejected (4 of 6 ) [[CASE NUMBER]] the submissions and framed charges for the offence under [SECTION] and [SECTION] [ACT].
Feeling aggrieved, the petitioners filed revision petitions under [SECTION] [ACT] The revisional court after hearing the parties, came to the conclusion that the trial court did not commit any mistake in framing charges and dismissed the revision petitions.
It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that the orders passed by both the courts, are contrary to law and the material available on record; if allowed to stand the same with result in miscarriage of justice and amount to gross abuse of process of the court; there is no material on record to frame charges for the offence under [SECTION] and [SECTION] [ACT].
It was further submitted that the courts below have not considered the material available on record as the petitioners have neither made any inducement nor have received any payment from the complainant and further no allegation of any entrustment to the petitioners by the complainant has been alleged so as to prima facie make out an offence under [SECTION] [ACT] and [SECTION] [ACT] respectively. It was also submitted that the petitioners have been charge-sheeted on the ground that they are family members of [ENTITY] and Directors of Saras Veg Oil Pvt. Ltd., whereas regarding directorship, there is no material available and, consequently, the petitioners could not be charged and, therefore, the orders impugned deserves to be quashed and set aside.
(5 of 6 ) [[CASE NUMBER]] Reliance was placed on [PRECEDENT], [PRECEDENT], [PRECEDENT] and [PRECEDENT].
Learned Public Prosecutor and learned counsel appearing for the complainant vehemently opposed the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioners. It was submitted that both the courts below have thoroughly examined the issues sought to be raised by the petitioners in the present petitions and have come to a conclusion that prima facie case is made out against the petitioners and, therefore, the orders does not call for any interference. Further submissions were made that most of the prosecution evidence is already over and, therefore, on that count also, no interference is called for in the present petitions.
I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the material available on record.
As noticed hereinbefore various submissions were made by counsel for the petitioners with reference to the complaint filed by the complainant, which was forwarded under [SECTION] [ACT] for registering the FIR and investigation, pursuant to which, charge-sheet under [SECTION] and [SECTION] [ACT] was filed against the petitioners alongwith [ENTITY].
(6 of 6 ) [[CASE NUMBER]] In the complaint though allegations predominantly have been made against [ENTITY], who has not challenged the order framing charges, allegations have also been made against the petitioners regarding their involvement in cheating and in causing inducement and regarding breach of trust.
The trial court while framing the charges and the revisional court, while examining the validity of order framing the charges, have found sufficient material on record to frame charges/uphold framing of the charges against the petitioners, which reasoning cannot be termed as perverse.
Besides the above, as the trial in the case, is already at an advance stage, on that count also no interference is called for in the present petitions.
So far as the judgments cited by counsel for the petitioners are concerned, the principles laid down therein are well settled and does not require to be reiterated, in the said judgments itself, it has been laid down that each matter has to be examined on its own merits.
In view of the above discussion, no case is made out on behalf of the petitioners, the petitions have no substance, the same are, therefore, dismissed.
([ENTITY] PKS