AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Prashant Kumar, J. - This revision application is directed against the order dated 23.05.2011 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Ranchi in connection with Kotwali (Sukhdeonagar) P.S. Case No. 158 of 2007, corresponding to G.R. Case No. 709 of 2007 whereby and where under , he rejected the application of the petitioners filed under section 239 of the Cr. P.C. and concluded that prima facie, offences under sections 406. 420, 120B of the Indian Penal Code and section 138 of the N.I. Act is made out against the accused persons including these petitioners.
It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that petitioners had not issued any cheque in favour of the complainant, rather the same was issued by the co-accused. Thus, no offence under section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act made out against the petitioners. It is further submitted that there is no other material to show that the petitioners had cheated and/or misappropriated the money of the complainant, therefore, the offences under section 406. 420 of the IPC is also not made out against the petitioners.
On the other hand, Sri Amresh Kumar, learned Additional P.P. submits that at paragraph nos. 2,5,6,51 and 57 of the case diary, there are ample materials to show that on the basis of assurance and inducement made by these petitioners, the complainant had paid money to the co-accused Dilip Kumar Panwar. He then submitted that in view of the aforesaid statements of the witnesses, prima facie, offences under sections 420 read with section 120B of the IPC made out against these petitioners. Thus, at this stage, no interference required by this Court.
Having heard the submissions, I have gone through the record of the case as well as the case diary. From perusal of the impugned order, I find that learned court below had concluded that prima facie, offences made out against the petitioners in view of the materials available at paragraph nos. 2,5,6,51 and 57 of the case diary. The learned court below further find that at paragraph nos. 51 of the case diary one Pranoy Bagchi had impersonated himself before the informant to be Pradeep Bagchi, who is brother of this petitioner. The aforesaid fact narrated by the learned court below finds support from the perusal of the case diary.
Under the said circumstance, the conclusion of the court below that prima facie, offences made out against the petitioners, is not required to be interfered at this stage. Thus, I find no merit in this revision application. Accordingly, the same is dismissed.