•ingie Bencl BEFORE THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR i.»7.fiCR^NO. 6>32_ /2011 fS.B.l Crr.f^'f- PETITIONERS/ACCUSED 1. Badrujma Khan, aged about APPLICANTS 52 years, son of Late Ali Jama Khan k"" }..--"."'' ^•^•^w pses'^y^- 2. Firoz Khan, aged about 22 years, son of Shri Badrujma Khan. Both are resident ofVill. Maszid Para, Surajpur, P.S. and Tah. Surajpur, Distt. Sarguja (CG) VERSUS RESPO.NDENT State of Chhattisgarh through the District Magistrate, Korea (C.G.) PETITION UNDER SECTION 482 OF THE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE. 1973 AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 12.10.2011 PASSED BY SHRI S.R. BANJARE. ADDITIONAL SESSIONS 3UDGE. MANENDRAGARH AT BAIKUNTHPUR DIST. KOREA IN CRIMINAL REVISION N0. 36/2010. WHEREBY AND WHEREUNDER THE COURT BELOW HAS DISMISSED THE REVISION PETITION PREFERRED BY THE ACCUSED PERSONS AGAINST THE ORDER OF FRAMING OF CHARGES DT. 15.07.2010 ,-'-- ^ v R '^•J ^-HC—78 '~^ ff./"^ •i"^.^ SC^V ^5T f't-fi'* WTT 3TI^?T sbTti^ -)-. *II*ICTI thirai 3^ '*{WWi, axfly'Ko, fsjdiy^< ,..4.M..f:......^-..6.^ sn^i '^sa (lyf^'is.ti) TOIIWdfTO 3II^¥T 1M1.-2 Mr. M.K. Bhaduri, coun^e! for the petitioners. Mr. Ashteh Gupta, Pan^l Lawyer for the State. be4n dat^d This petition has aggrieved by the order Revision No.36/2010, wher^ dated 15.07.2010 for aileg| Sections 420, 50S(B)/34 IPC| Assai'.ing the correctrl framing of charges as also th| learned counsel for the petitit has been lodged aimost aftef offence. He submits that fro| charge sheet itseif, it is that the money was alleged name of providing the year 2005, but, the FIF^ years, which shows that on clearf that employtnent ctii<4l<n<ni iTT^ff ^f fs^ <'^^'R ^aTRiq 3)1^1 fited by the petitioners being 12.10.2011 passed in Crimina! •^by, the order of framing charges fed commission of offencs under |has been affirmed. jess and validity of the order of i|e order passed in criminal revlsion, )ners firstly submits that the report 3 years of t'ne date of t'ne aileged ^. the FiR and the contents of the the case of the prosecution is [o be pald to the petitioners in the to the complainant's son in has been lodged almostafter 3 cjmnibus grounds, a report has been ARUNIMA'S T-] /f^\ f'fes-^ ^ ^B3?&si, ^Sl-HC—78 311^1 W W\* Wf 3tI^T »fw + ^wvn *Hiq» '3~3T "41'illcl-i<, e'fll<H'16, fayiyy ^,....4.a:f..i....^.iJ/!•H^ 200 sn^i •q?i% ('^ifg'i^T) TCIIW ^ifei sii^i ^ made to falsely implicate the the compiainant has been d4 the report in the Police St^' criminsS case is abuse of the | counsel subm'rts that the all< the case diary statements ar^ any documentary evidence money to the petitioners etc documentary evidence to si| crimina! proceedings initiate^ certainly be miscarriage ofju^ quashed. On the other hand, !eai] that from the FIR and the ca| reveals that the petitioners hj name of providing employm^ iater on, the complainant cam] to induce the complainant to demand was made for complainant was threatened stage, the FIR was lodged by A perusa! of the FIR facie show that the allegatior antl <hiii<'i41-f wivS tf fs^Q <M(<K ^sifiro an^i )etitioners. He submits that if at all frauded, he ought to have lodged tion eariier, therefore, the entire Iprocess of lavv. Secondly, learned ^gations contained in the F1R and vague and are not supported by |i.e. receipts of the payment of ^nd in absence of there being any Ipport the prosecution case, the against the petitioners wouid (tice and the same is simply to be cape fried counse! for the State submits ;a^e diary statements prima facie it i^d recovered huge amountin the |nt to the complainant's son and ife to know that this wss a fraud act (sart with huge amount. When the r^urn of the said amount, the |3f dire consequences snd at Shat ^he complainant. the case diary statements prima 1s against the petitioners are that ARUN —m y ,f— -w^ "W9 S "^ .s-s <?• an^TTiR'iw ^iT 3(1^1 WRRi' ! dTci •^ic<ici^, ®Tii<.i;]<o,rsidiyy ..m:.t:......^o:llll)J >di "^ •w^oo 3)T^T'q°R?(^lf3^I) wnwHftBsn^i ^ they recovered an amount for the son of the compl^ acted upor, and parted with| ^>l<llf]<ill1Wfif'? fe i', tfet^ii ^; stigiT an^- of Rs.95,000/- in the year 2005 in 3 instailments on the assurai^ce that they Vi/iil get the job arranged inant and on that the complainant the money. it has also been alleged that the smount was lat&r on not repaid. The case dlsry statements and F.1.R. taken together make out a prima Tacie case. Whether In the absence of documentary evidence, the case of the prosecution is a matter of enquirv durin< As far as delay consideration the nature committed, in the opinion| jround to quash the entir) taken on the assurance ofl able to be beiieved or disbeiieved is trial and at this stage. this Court is not required to examine th^ veracity of the prosecution case. quite sometime, no sucji employment was arranged, the complsinant requested foi| and then finaily denied. In these circumstan{ the crimina! proceedings| petition filed under Sec1]i Procedure is dismissed. part is concerned, taking into of offence alleged to have been of this Court, Shat couid be not a i criminal proceedlngs. Money was providing employment and when for refund, which vvas initially avo'ided ;es, 1 am notinclined to interfere in initiated against the pet'rtioners. The on 482 of the Code of Criminal ^wsv, na^iipiR—!••<;;<o—2/2011—i ,50,000. -4.. AftUNI ^^s^.:^^ ^i^y^ '«, •A.'.;"":.;~\?.-<s. •XI-HC—78 sn^rqn K-n* 'WT 3n^T ?h"lIN) Jkj; <1W?IT ShNith 3^ "Miiiifi, ®TilyJifi,fs(<viiyl^< .^..^t.^.i^.M 200 Sn^I'q^T (li°lf^«l<IEl) t^IIW flfOT 311^1 1 whether a case for crimina! p| triai Court; sliall decide th^ °hl^T<?l4t^ 'CTT^Tf ^f 'feT^ •(^f^R ^affin 3i^i t is made clear that tl(is Court has examined on!y as to ^oceedings is made out or not. The matter based on the evidence coltected 'dyring trial witt|iout being influenced by the obset'yations .made in this orcjer. ——--___ Sd/- Manindra Mohan Shrivastav, Judge +