RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY, J. - (1.) HEARD Mr. Mohit Prakash, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Mr. Pankaj Kumar, learned counsel for the State. In this application, the petitioner has prayed for quashing the entire criminal proceeding in connection with Complaint Case No. 238 of 2003 including the order dated 3.7.2004 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi, whereby and whereunder, cognizance has been taken for the offence punishable u/s 420/465 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
(2.) IT appears that opposite party No. 2 instituted a complaint in which it was stated that the complainant was the President of the Cooperative Society, namely, Employees Swablambi Sahkari Samiti which is duly registered in the District Cooperative Societies Act vide registration No. BR -10 -05 -H/R/98. It has been stated that the petitioner is the Secretary of the said society which has its own bylaws, rules and regulations for conducting the day -to -day affairs of the society. In the complaint petition it has been alleged that the complainant could come to know that the petitioner had collected a huge amount of money from its members without being authorized to do so and neither the said amount was deposited nor the land was made available to the members. It has also been alleged that by misrepresenting and committing fraud upon the members of the society, the accused persons kept books of accounts in their custody and in the month of December, 2001, when the complainant verified the books of accounts which were handed over to the complainant, he could detect a defalcation to the tune of Rs. 50 Lakhs. On the basis of the aforesaid allegation, the Complaint Case No. 238 of 2003 was instituted.
(3.) AFTER enquiry was conducted u/s 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.) by examining the complainant on solemn affirmation as also his witnesses and pursuant thereto vide order dated 3.7.2004, the learned Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi was pleased to take cognizance for the offence punishable u/s 420/465 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the entire allegations levelled in the complaint petition are false and concocted and it is in fact the complainant, who is the person responsible for committing huge defalcation on the promise of giving land to the members. He has further submitted that it is surprising that the President of the Cooperative Society has complained although he was not authorized by the members to do so and there is no allegation from any member of the society with respect to defalcation and misappropriation of the amount as has been alleged by the complainant. It has also been submitted that it is in fact the complainant who had collected a huge amount with the connivance of the brokers and the complainant neither refunded the money nor provided the land to the members. In fact as has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner had also deposited Rs. 33,000/ -, but the land acquired was not allotted to him rather the same was distributed among 85 members, nor the amount deposited by the petitioner had been refunded to him. In fact the petitioner had filed a complaint against the brokers in which the complainant of the present case was made a witness but the complainant refused to depose inspite of several requests made by the petitioner. It has further been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the suspicious role of the complainant was reported to the District Cooperative Officer, Rancni vide letter dated 10.12.2005 by the petitioner and the District Cooperative Officer on the basis of the said letter vide letter dated 13.12.2005 directed the complainant/ opposite party No. 2 to give certain clarifications, but the same was never done by the complainant/ opposite party No. 2 which further reveals his complicity in the offence. Learned counsel for the petitioner, therefore, submits that in view of the fact it is the complainant who is the person responsible for defalcation of the money of the society and the petitioner having been made a scapegoat, the entire criminal proceeding as against him is liable to be set aside. At this, the learned counsel for the State has submitted that there is specific allegation against the petitioner in the complaint that he had collected money from the members without being authorized to do so, but neither the money was refunded nor the land was allotted to the members. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and after going through the records, I find that the complaint case bearing Complaint Case No. 238/2003 had been instituted by the complainant/ opposite party No. 2, whereas the Complaint Case No. 1333 of 2005 was filed by the petitioner in the year 2005. It further appears from the Complaint Case No. 1333 of 2005 instituted by the petitioner in which opposite party No. 2 was named as witness No. 1. If the petitioner was aggrieved by the acts/ actions on the part of the complainant/ opposite party No. 2 and if it was the complainant/ opposite party No. 2 who had a hand in the defalcation of the money of the cooperative society, it was but natural for the petitioner to implicate the complainant as accused in Complaint Case No. 1333 of 2005, but surprisingly the complainant was not made an accused, rather he was made a witness, which shows that what has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner with respect to the role of the complainant/ opposite party No. 2 in defalcation of such a huge amount is based on flimsy grounds and no cognizance can be taken with respect to the said offence. Even otherwise, the complaint petition clearly reveals a criminal intent on the part of the petitioner in misappropriating an amount of Rs. 50 Lakhs of the members of the society. This Court u/s 482 Cr.P.C. is not empowered to conduct a meticulous examination of the documents of the parties or a roving enquiry into the defence of accused and since a prima facie case is made out against the petitioner this Court is not inclined to interfere in the criminal proceedings. Accordingly, there bring no merit in this application, the same is hereby dismissed. However, the petitioner is at liberty to raise all the points before the learned court below at the appropriate stage.;