^, HIQH COURT OF CHHATTISGAKH AT BILASPUR SINGLE_BSHCHjHON?BLESHmT.P,SHARMA,,J. CR.N.P.NG. 82/2008 Raoiashaakar Siagh Vs. State of Chhattisgarh & Another ORDBR Post ibr y / 03/2008 Sd/- T.P. Sharma Judge ,.,1-.. H20H COURT OP CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR ^ CR.M.P. N0. 82/2008 PBTIT30NBR Versus RESPONDEWTS Raoiashankar Singh Soii of Shri Bliagwat Sio.gh @ Gajadhar Sio.gh, aged about 50 yeai's, Occupation Director, Antariksh Credit Card andCoiimiercial LiBiited, r/o. Dharwara^ Post Office Dhanvara^ Tehsil Karclihaaa, Distt, AUaliabad (UP) State of Chhattisgarh, through tlie District Magistrate, District Kabeerdham (CG) Shakiruddiii F^ureshi, son of SIiri Mahebubuddio. R/o, Aadm'sh Nagar, Kawardha, District Kabeerdham (CG) PBTITSON_UNDBR SECTSOM 482 OP THB CR.P.C. (SB :Hoa'ble Shri T.P.Shaa-ma, J.) Present: Shri. V.C.Ottalwar, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Saajeev Kzimar Agrawal, Panel law\rer for tlie State/respondeut No.l. 2. ORDER (Passed oa 7' March 200S| This petition is liled for ciuashiiient of.the order dated 1.12.2007 passed by the leanied Sessions Jndge, Kabeer Dhani (Kawardha) io. Cr. Revision No, 43/2007 affiriiiiing the order dated 12.7.2007 passed by the Judicial Magistrate. First class, Kawarclha ia Cr. Case No. 453/2006. 2. Order impugued is challenged on the ground that fraiiiiiig of the charge agaio.st tlie appUcaiit for tlie oftence punishable under Section 420 ofthe IPC is witlioiit niaterial av£dlableon record. 3. The appMcant is a Director of Aatariksh Credit Card aiid Coinrsiercial Liinited. Benig registered under tlie Com.pao.ies Act, 1956, it is haviag its head office ia the. State of Uttar Pradesh. On fhe ground of ^:) -2- ^ acute finaacial loss to tlie Conipaiiy, Board of Directors of the Conipany has decided to wind up fhe Conipao.y io. accordan.ee with Section 433 (a) (b) (c) (d) (e) (^ (g) (h) & (i) aiid 434 ofthe Companies Act, 1956. A petition for wio.din.g up the Compaiiy was filed before Honyble High Court of AIlahabad. One Prakash Verma had inade a complaiiit to tlie Distdct CoUector, Kawardha for io.itiatiou ofcrimiaal proceedin.gs again.st the uon appMcaiit No.2. The Kawrdha poUce had registered the case agaiiist the appUcan.t aiid charge sheet was filed before Judicial Magistrate first Class. After hearing the parties tlie Judicial Magistrate First Class, Kawardha has fraaied charge again.st the applicant for the. offence puuishable undner Section 420 ofthe IPC. 4. Counsel for fhe parties heard, 5, Order ioipugned aiid copy ofdocunieiits perased, 6, It is submitted on behalf of the applicaat th.at Aiitariksh Credit Card aad Coinniercial Limited Corsipany is a registered Conipaiiy under the Conipanies Act, 1956. Consideriiig th.e em.ergency, fhc Boaj:d of Directors has resolved to wiad up the Coinpaiiy and fhey had filed a petition before Hou7ble High Court of Allahabad. It is also submitted on behalf of the appMcant that fhey have not coinniitted aiiy cheatmg with. an.y custoBier, The.y are ready to pay the dzies but dzie to aczite eniergency, they are not io. a position to pay the saine. They have appMed before the High Court of Allahabad for wiiidmg up of the compaiiy ia accordaiice with Section 433 (a) ofthe Com.paiiies Act, 1956, 7. The order iinpugned is supported 011 behatf of non-applicaB.t No.l. It is also submitted that there is no materiai available for framiag of tlie charge.agam.st the appUcao.t HonT^le High Court ofAIlahabad had made it clear fh.at ia the Compaiiy petition No. 16/98 filed ou behalf of the appMcaut, which reads as follows: UIt is made dear that this order imtl not absolve ihe coinpany of its legal responsibilities neither will ihis order stand in the ivay of any penal action taken or proposed to -&- ^ be taken againsi ihe company or its Direciors or any civil proceedings.}! 9. It appears from. the order iinpugued, copy of FIR aad copy of charge sheet that fhe appUcao.t is a Director of Antariksh Credit Card aiid Coniniercial Liinited, which is a coinpaiiy registered under fhe Conipaaies Act, 1956. They had iaduced tiie persons of Kawardha distdct to deposit nioney wifh the Coiiipaiiy iii vaiious beneficial schemes, Consequeut to fhe mducement made by the applicant aad th.eir officers, fhe people of Kawardha district had deposited fhe nioney. The appMcant and his conipany has not retumed fhe money deposited by fhe persons ia. accordaiice with fhe schenie and closed fhe office situated at Kawardha as the conipan.y started win.din.g up fhe proceediags of tiieir busiaess. 10. The appUcaiit aiid his conipaiiy have iaduced the persons to deliver fheir valziable raouey aa.d on niduceio.ent tb.ey have delivered fhe property to fhe Conipaiiy but the Coiapaiiy has uot retumed the same. These facts are sufficient for framing of the charge by the offeuce pzinishable under Section 420 ofthe IPC. 11. At the stage offramnig charge, no ineticuloiis scnitiny ofevidence is required. Serious doubt of coinniissiou of the offence is sufficient for fraoiitig ofth.e chai'ge. 12. After talcnig into cousideration the facts ofthe case, Uie trial Cozirt has passed the order frainio.g charges aiid fhe saine is affinned in. revisiou. 13. The Courts belo^v have not committed aiiy illegality by framing charge against thc appUcant. 14. I do iiot find any substance on nierits. Consequently, tlie revision is Uable to be disniissed aad is hereby disaiissed. Buguna Sd/- T.P. Sharma Judge