BALRAM RATHORE Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners have filed the present petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India, challenging the inaction on the part of the respondents-authority and for quashment of FIR No.0018 of 2019 dtd. 3/10/2019 (Annexure P/4) registered at Police Station Khamhardih, Raipur for alleged commission of offence punishable under Sec. 420 read with Sec. 34 of IPC.

(2.) The brief facts, as projected by the petitioner, are that petitioner No.1 is a Chartered Accountant and he is the professional financial adviser whereas petitioner No.2 is the wife of petitioner and she is the proprietor of the Niti Marketing/BRM Minerals and Logistics. One Mr. Dinesh Agrawal, proprietor of M/s Dinesh Enterprises doing the business of chemical manufacturer (Sodium Silicate Powder) was introduced by the Credit Manager of the HDFC Bank and Mr. Pawan Verma and Piyush Verma both were introduced with the petitioners by Mr. Prafulla Chandra Nayak, Ex. Manager of Bank of Maharashtra, Durg Branch who is running business of of Internet Service Provider. Mr. Dinesh Agrawal, Pawan Verma and Piyush Verma were regularly visiting the office of the petitioner and got the faith due to which the petitioners have given their own amount of Rs.65,38,500.00 for financial need in their business through various cheques and RTGs and they have promised to return the amount within three months.

(3.) It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioners that the complainant Pinki Das and her sister who are respondents No.3 and 7 respectively are neighbours and also familiar with the petitioners. Respondents No. 3 and 7 have given an amount of Rs.10,00,000.00 to Pawan Kumar Verma through a cheque without the knowledge of the petitioners and respondents No. 3 and 7 have invested Rs.65,00,000.00 in the business of Dinesh Agawal, Pawan Verma and Piyush Verma. The petitioners through their account transferred the amount of Rs.42,00,000.00 as per the directions of the complainants. Even after almost a year of providing the money, Dinesh Agrawal Pawan Kumar Verma and Piyush Verma have not returned the money despite requests made by respondents No. 3 and 7. Due to malafide intention on the part of these persons, the clients of the petitioners are adversely affected, therefore, the petitioners through their Advocate sent legal notice to Dinesh Agrawal, Pawan Kumar Verma and Piyush Verma. Despte the knowledge of the legal notice Dinesh Agrawal, Pawan Kumar Verma and Piyush Kumar Verma have not given any response to the legal notice nor any afford has been mdae by them to refund the invested amount of the petitioners, therefore, the petitioners have filed a written complaint on 9/11/2019, but no action has been taken on the said complaint.