Ravi Nath Verma, J. - (1.) Challenge in this revision application is to the order dated 2.5.2014 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi in C -2461 of 2008 whereby and whereunder, the petition filed by the petitioners for their discharge under Sec. 245 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short "the Code"), has been rejected. The facts of the case, which is relevant for the proper adjudication of the issue involved in this revision application, in short, is that at the instance of the informant Niranjan Lai Todi, Ranchi Kotwali P.S. Case No. 103 of 2006 was instituted under Ss. 420, 461 and 379/34 of I.P.C. against the petitioners with the allegation that the informant has been running a shop namely "Shyam Enterprises" on monthly tenanted basis of which the petitioners were owners. Earlier, a lease agreement was executed between this informant and the petitioners which continued till October, 2005, thereafter, this informant was paying rent month to month but as the wife of the owner Binod Prasad Chaurasia was admitted in Seva Sadan Hospital, Ranchi, he requested the informant to pay him Rs. 2,00,000/ -, which is urgently required and in lieu of that, he will execute a lease agreement of the tenanted shop in his favour for eleven years. On his request, the informant paid Rs. 30,000/ - to Binod Prasad Chaurasia in presence of Rajan Chaurasia and Bhim Chaurasia and the petitioners gave him a written receipt of Rs. 30,000/ -. Again after few days, he gave Rs. 1,20,000/ - but this time, the petitioners did not give him any receipt and whenever he asked them to give receipt, they always assured to handover the same but as the wife of Binod Kumar Chaurasia was admitted in hospital, he never put any pressure on the petitioners to issue receipt and subsequently on 10.2.2006 at about 8.00 a.m. when the informant went to open his shop, he found the lock of the godown and shop broken and the materials worth Rs. 2,00,000/ - missing. On enquiry from the neighbours, he came to learn that the shop owner Binod Kumar Chaurasia, Rajan Chaurasia and Bhim Chaurasia have removed the articles from his godown and shop and when this informant enquired from the petitioners, they badly misbehaved with him and threatened him of dire consequence.
(2.) It appears from the record that the police after investigation submitted the final form against the petitioners whereafter a complaint -cum -protest petition was filed and the court after examining the complainant as well as the witnesses took cognizance of the offence under Ss. 420, 461 and 379/34 of I.P.C. and directed to issue summons against the petitioners to face the trial holding that on examination of the depositions of the complainant as well as witnesses, there appears to be sufficient materials on the record for framing charge. Accordingly, the discharge petition was rejected as indicated above. Hence, this revision.
(3.) Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners assailing the order impugned as perverse and bad in law seriously contended that there is absolutely no direct or indirect evidence to show the involvement of the petitioners in the alleged offence and almost on the similar facts, F.I.R. was lodged but after investigation, the police submitted final form against the petitioners. It was also submitted that none of the ingredients responsible to constitute the offence either under Sec. 420 or 461 or 379 of I.P.C. are available on record to frame charge against the petitioners, which would appear from the evidence of the witnesses examined under Sec. 244 of the Code and further submitted that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in several judgments have settled that if two views are possible and the Judge is satisfied that the evidence produced gives rise to suspicion only, as distinguished from grave suspicion, he would be fully within his right to discharge the accused.;