Vivek Agarwal, J. - (1.)This petition under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 has been filed by the petitioner against the order dt.23.09.2017 passed by the Second Additional Sessions Judge, Bhind in Cr.R.No.105/2015, whereby the order dt.11.2.2015 passed by the learned C.J.M. Bhind in Criminal Case No.120/2015 issuing summons to the petitioner alongwith her husband after taking cognizance against her under the provisions of Section 420/34 of IPC has been upheld.
(2.)It is the contention of the petitioner that the complainant Santram has filed a private complaint against Dheeraj Shrivastava, petitioner Sangita Shrivastava and one Rakesh Singh under the provisions of Section 420, 467, 468, 471, 294 and 506-B of IPC, in which it is mentioned that the present petitioner is working as Staff Nurse in District Hospital, Bhind alongwith the complainant. The complainant is working as Compounder. According to the allegations, the present petitioner had introduced Dheeraj Shrivastava and Rakesh Singh with the complainant for the purpose of purchase of a house at Gwalior. The complainant was shown the house at Aamkho Gwalior by Dheeraj Shrivastava, which was liked by the complainant and for which the price was settled as Rs.17,15,000/-. Thereafter he had given a cheque of Rs.50,000/- as advance and thereafter he was informed that he being a government servant will be entitled to a loan of Rs.11,00,000/- from the bank and he had made certain papers available to the accused persons and at the instance of the present petitioner and her husband, he had given a cheque of Rs.3,50,000/- on 21.1.2012. Thereafter he had again paid certain amount on 27.3.2012. Thus, total Rs.7,00,000/- was paid. Despite receiving such cheques and submitting papers for bank loan when complainant asked for execution of sale deed, then the present petitioner had assured him that since she is a colleague of the complainant, his money is safe and by way of surety Dheeraj Shrivastava had given two cheques of total Rs.7,00,000/- but when such cheques were deposited, then they were dishonoured. In view of such facts, he had made a report to the Police Station but since relative of Dheeraj Shrivastava is working as Steno in the office of S.P. Bhind, therefore, no action was taken. It is also mentioned in the complaint that thereafter he had undertaken proceedings under Section 156 (3) of Cr.P.C. and thereafter direction was issued for registration of case against the accused persons including the present petitioner. But under the pressure, police is not proceeding with the case and is trying to file ER as a result, complainant had filed a private complaint in which cognizance has been taken.
(3.)Learned counsel for the petitioner on the other hand submits that the present petitioner has falsely been impleaded in the case. He has taken this court through statements given by the complainant Santram Sharma on 31.7.2012 before the police authorities to point out that the role of the petitioner was limited to introduce the complainant to her husband, who is a property dealer. He has pointed out specific contention to the effect that complainant in his statement admitted that on 14.12.2011 he had gone to Gwalior alongwith his child, wife and Dheeraj Shrivastava, where he was shown three Duplex Houses constructed behind Aamkho Bus Stand and had informed him that one of the house was of his share (share of Dheerendra Shrivastava) and he will sale it. He had given cost of such house at Rs.17.5 lakhs and when complainant informed him that he can not give this much amount, then he had assured that he will get finance to the tune of Rs.11 lakhs. Then the complainant had paid a sum of Rs.50,000/- vide cheque No.4312 from Account No.143501500087 jointly held by the complainant alongwith his wife at ICICI Bank. Thereafter the complainant had furnished all the documents to Dheeraj Shrivastava for obtaining loan and after 8-10 days he telephoned the complainant that the bank has financed him to the tune of Rs.10,65,000/- and demanded remaining amount when complainant had paid him cheque No.4313 dt.21.1.2012 and cheque No.865 on 27.3.2012. Thereafter on 3.4.2012 when he had contacted Dheeraj Shrivastava on his mobile number in regard to registration of sale deed, he called him to Gwalior next day. When he reached there on 4.4.2012, then he found that house of Dheeraj Shrivastava at Deen Dayal Nagar Gwalior bearing No.B-489 was locked, then he contacted Dheeraj Shrivastava, who informed him that he was at Morena and asked him to go back. Thereafter he got suspicious and visited Aamkho, Gwalior. There on inquiry, it was revealed that the houses which were shown of Dheeraj Shrivastava were not of his own but their owner was one Vinod Tomar and he was only selling those houses. Thereafter when Dheeraj Shrivastava stopped taking calls he reported the matter to his wife Smt. Sangita Shrivastava on whose instructions Dheeraj Shrivastava had given Cheque No.005710 for a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- drawn at ICICI Bank and another Cheque No.005711 for a sum of Rs.4,00,000/- dt.7.5.2012 and when such cheques were presented, they were dishonoured. In view of such statement given to police learned counsel submits that none of the ingredients of Section 420 or Section 34 of IPC are made out against the present petitioner and therefore the cognizance, which has been taken by the trial court, as has been affirmed by the revisional court, deserves to be set aside.