SUDHIR KUMAR SINGH AND OTHERS Vs. STATE OF UTTARKAHAND AND ANOTHER
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
Sudhir Kumar Singh And Others
State Of Uttarkahand And Another
Click here to view full judgement.
(1.) The applicants, by means of the present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C., seek to quash the charge sheet dated 12.08.2008 as well as the proceedings of criminal case no. 4051 of 2008, captioned as State vs. Sudhir Kumar Singh and others, relating to offences punishable under Sections 420 and 406 IPC, pending in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dehradun.
(2.) A first information report was lodged by the respondent no. 2 Bharat Bhushan Gupta against the accused-applicants Sudhir Kumar, Bipin Kumar and Sonu Rawat on 10.04.2008 in PS Kotwali Nagar, Dehradun for the offences punishable under Sections 420 and 406 IPC. The grievance of the respondent no. 2 was that Anand Rathi Securities Private Limited blocked the limit of account of respondent no. 2 on 21.01.2008, and therefore, he could not proceed online share trading and on account of this, respondent no. 2 could not compensate his loss in share trading on account of falling down of the share market. The contents of the first information report were read over by the learned counsel for the applicants in the court. After the investigation, charge sheet against the accused-applicants in respect of offences punishable under Sections 420 and 406 IPC was submitted. Cognizance on the said charge sheet was taken by the learned Magistrate. Aggrieved against the said order, present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. was moved.
(3.) Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that even on a bare reading of the first information report, no ingredient of offence punishable under Section 420 or 406 IPC were made out. Learned counsel further submitted that there was no element of 'entrustment', 'dominion of property' or 'deception', even if the contents of the first information report be considered to be true. Learned counsel further pointed out that nothing was entrusted to the applicants.
The dispute of respondent no.2 was with Anand Rathi Securities Private Limited, who filed a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act against respondent no. 2, which is pending adjudication. The police investigated the case only for namesake. Statement of the complainant only was taken by the investigating officer.
Only on the basis of the statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. of the complainant Bharat Bhushan and other constables, charge sheet was filed against the accused applicants. In fact, no case was made out against them.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.