IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Cr.M.P. No.?.Ll3..../2011 w PETITIONER ?ft-w-T w^s-^^ />..>•*••" ^SWt ^^^';<" iiSB" "?-^},y"'" ......-'•""^ v RESPONDENT Deepak Bardiya Son of Late Shri Mohanlal Bardiya; aged about 39 years, Resident of Santoshi Ward, Kumharpara Jagdalpur VERSUS State of Chhattisgarh Through Kotwali Jagdalpur PETITION UNDER SECTION 482 OF CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE 31T5RIV Ri-fi'* "^T3^?T 'TST "4i^ici^!, ®Ti'iy'i<c,[sj<riiyLj,< ..(2'r.YU~A.:..<^...'.....?°./i'3/22 1 3ff^T •q^7 (-ijqt^q^q) ^gTWBf?'! sa^T <*w!<')41-< iTprcif'? fesr ^fSn^R' ^sffinsn^r SB : Hon'bfe Shri Manindra Mohan!Shrivastava.J. 12-12.2011 Shri S.lmtiaz Ali, counsei for trl e petitioner. Shri Rakesh Jha, Deputy Gov^rnment Advocate for the State. This petition under Section 432 CrPC has been flied by ihe petitioner for quashing charge sheet filed by the petitioner aiieging commission of offence under Section 420, 406 of IPC. One-Sanjay Jha iodged report|in the police siation aiieging that in the matter of opening a policy in the name of hjs mother and wife, certain amount was taken by the petitioner and it was'alieged i|hat an amount of Rs.1,50,000/'-, in respect of which, the receipt of deposit was islsued, was iater on, found to have not been deposited in the bank by the petitione fiied charge sheet for alieged cpijnmission of aforesaid ofrence against the petrtipner. The conteniion of iearned coutisel for the petitioner is that ailegation that the petitioner'Sid flot deposit the top-itp amount of Rs.1,50,000/"- in the bank is factually incorrect. The submission obtained information from the HDFi Sharda have been given which st| r. After making usual invesiigation, the poiice is, that the poiice, during investigation had S Bank and a ietter dated 20/12/2010 was received by the Investigating OfRcer jn which, on behalf of the HDFC Standard Life Insufance Company Ltd., detaiis o|f policy held by Smt. Kamaltara and Smt. ows that on various dates, amounts were deposited either through cheque, cjash or demand draft and ihe totai amount deposited is Rs.4,50,000/-. He si^bmits that ihis cteariy faisifles the aliegation again.st the peiitioner that he either yheated or misappropriated the money which was given to him for being deposit^d against the policy heid by Smt. Kamaitara and Smt. Sharda. T=^-f^sf '"^^.' •i- l'-u ^^'^: an^l%Tfe;lNT CTT sn^n gnN? '!>., *<I*<CTI ai*ii<t> 3^T -<(|q|<v|<j^ 8>T)1y|lc, [sldl'yy C^-t^4,. L--O -^tfZ/ll 'W[ 200 Q^ sn^r T^T ('^f^^r^ ^nwdfcr aii^i ^- °ni<((ii'ili imcit 'if fezt <r^l(<;l< ^afiiHaii^r The submission of learnefl counsei for the petitioner that none of the ingredients of offence under Secti|5n 406, 420 IPC are made out because even ir the entire charge sheet is taken on its face vaiue and is accepted in its entirety, the essential ingredients of the offei|ice alteged are not at ail made out and ihe prosecution ofthe petitioner unde^ process of law. The averments contained Sanjay Kumar Jha contained an a| benefits of the policy and it was and along with the insurance am< the said charge sheet would be an abuse of the in the.FiR and the case diary statements of iegation that the petitioner had given detaiis and stated that Rs.1,50,000/- wili be kept as top-up int, the top-up amount wouid aiso be increased. Thereafter, it is alleged that the |totai amount of Rs.3,00,000/- was given to fhe petitioner. Further aiiegation is th|at when after about four years, the branch of the concemed bank was approach^d, it was found that the top-up amount of Rs.1,50,000/- was never deposite|d and upon further enquiry, it was found that the receipt issygd-b^ the petitioner ^as a forged one. The statements of Operation Officer of HDFG Standard Life hfeis also been recorded who has sfated that the total amount deposited in the p^licy issued in the name of Smt. Kamaitara and Smt. Sharda is oniy Rs.1 ,50,000; - and no further amount has been deposited. It has a^o been specifically stated jn the statement that the remaining amount stated to be,top-up of Rs.1,50,000/- w^s not deposited in the bank till the statement is given. The ofRcer has stated that receipt dated 6/4/06 of Rs.1,50,000/- is a forged receipt and the company has notfssued any such receipt. in view ofthe aforesaid sytements and materiat which has been brought on record, it is difficuit for this Cour|t to accept the contention of learned counsel ror the petitioner that even if aii tl-jose ailegations are accepted in its entirety, an^ .iGS.red!§nLofJ:heoffence aiiegedjwouid not be made out. The bone of contention iiro^ri fs'-fiv ys'iTTvst, (nFffyira—i.s/i40—2/201i—i ,50,000. aiiin'iBlfiFiHi- W1T an^j aiijq,- Deepti 's^ •<fiqi<n<i, ®Ti1<H'ifi,Isidi'y^ ^; *11*1CTI tbtff^i T'VY^fo . IA-0 • <8>^>3/// """"(""""""""""'"""^200 sn^r ~c^v (ij^'^^) (M<(^<ft'T HIH^* ^f fs^t Tf^^.l< ^aiRlHan^! through out has been that the HDpC Standard Life Insurance Ltd. issued a ietter showing amount under deposit ag^inst the poiicies. Whether the said information is correct or the case of the pros^cution as contained in ihe statement of Sanjay Jha and Amandeep Singh Sone is correct, is itselr a matter of enquiry. This therefore, can be enquired into on|ly ciuring the cotirse of trial. Hcwever, it cannot be said that the ailegations takei|i on its face vaiue do not make outany case warranting prosecution of the petitioner. It would be for the peiitioner to impeach credibi!ity of the prosecution by le^ding appropriate evidence and raising defence. However, at this stage, this Cot<rt is not inciined to accept that subjecting the petNoner to criminal trial would an|iount to abuse of the process of iaw. Therefore, i am not inclined to admitthe petiti|on. The petition is accordingly dismissed. Sd/- Manindra Mohan Shrivastava Judge ins'fti ia-JN sswraiT, tTaRR'ira—i.s/i40—2/2011—i ,so,0flo.