Laxmikant Tiwari vs State Of Chhattisgarh

This petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short “the Code”) has been filed against the order dated 29.12.2022 passed by Second Additional Sessions Judge, Durg in Criminal Revision No.201/2022 arising out of order passed by Judicial Magistrate First Class, Durg in Criminal Case No.3153/2018, whereby application filed by the petitioner under Section 239 Cr.P.C. for discharge the accused has been dismissed.

Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the main allegation is against the Baikunth Prasad Upadhyay who has given the assurance to double the money invested by the complainant and the said person in deceitful manner given the account of the petitioner in which complainant has transferred the money to the tune of Rs.8 Lacs and the petitioner has already given the said money to Baikunth Prasad Updhyay. So the present petitioner has no role in the said crime and the petitioner was cheated by Baikunth Prasad Upadhyay however he was not implicated in the charge-sheet. Thereafter, the petitioner moved application under Section 239 of the Code but the same dismissed by the trial Court. Hence, this petition has been filed. He placed reliance in the matter of Rekha Jain Vs. State of Karnataka and another reported in (2022) 3 SCC 497. He lastly submits that the impugned orders are bad in law as the petitioner nor met with the complainant neither he had opportunity to make any dishonest inducement with the complainant, therefore, the petitioner deserves to be discharged from the accusation and the entire criminal proceeding deserves to be quashed.

Opposing the submission made by learned counsel for the petitioner, learned State counsel supports the impugned orders and would submit that at the stage of the charge, the Court is not required to meticulously examine the evidence as prima facie sufficient ingredients are available in the charge-sheet against the petitioner. Therefore, this petition has no merit and the same deserves to be dismissed.

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents available in the petition.

In Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of Maharashtra and others reported in 2021 SCC OnLine SC 315 it has been observed that while examining an FIR/complaint, quashing of which is sought, the court cannot embark upon an enquiry as to reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the FIR/complaint and the power of quashing should be exercised sparingly with circumspection, as it has been observed in the rarest of rare cases. Therefore, considering the nature of allegation made against the petitioner and considering the material available at present on record from which it appears that in the bank account of the present petitioner, the complainant has transferred Rs.8 Lacs and the petitioner has asserted that he has transferred the said amount to another person, this Court does not find present to be a fit case for quashing of criminal proceedings or to discharge the accused from the accusation. Further, in the case law referred by counsel for the petitioner, the appellants were bonafide purchaser to whom the main accused in a fraudulent manner sold the property, so the facts of that case are distinguishable and the same is not helpful to the petitioner as far as present case in concerned.

In view of the aforesaid discussion, this petition deserves to be and is hereby dismissed at motion stage.