The intention of the accused at the inception of the transaction and the sufficiency of material to frame the charge against the accused were the central legal points established in the judgment.

JUDGMENT :

G.A. SANAP, J.

1. In this criminal application filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short “Cr.PC”), the applicant-accused has questioned the correctness of the order dated 24th October, 2018, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Tirora, whereby the learned Magistrate rejected the application made by the applicant-accused for his discharge in Regular Criminal Case No. 11 of 2016.

2. The facts relevant for the purpose of deciding this application are as follows:

On 10th April, 2013, one Mr. Omprakash Ramkul Bhardwaj, the Project Officer of Adani Power Maharashtra Limited, Tirora, Plot No. A-1 lodged a report at Tirora Police Station against the applicant-accused. On the basis of the said report, a crime bearing No. 135 of 2013 came to be registered on 11th September, 2013 against the applicant-accused for an offence punishable under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short “IPC”). In short, it is the case of prosecution against the accused that he with dishonest intention induced the informantcompany to enter into a lease agreement knowing fully well that the accused was not in possession of the property as well as had not acquired title to the property. On the basis of the recovery certificate and with fraudulent and dishonest intention, he induced the informant-company for execution of the lease agreement.

3. It is the case of prosecution that the land admeasuring 36.52 acres was possessed as a lessee by M/s. Lan Eseda Industries Limited. The said industry obtained a loan from the Industrial Finance Corporation of India. The Corporation had filed a proceeding before the Competent Court for recovery of Rs.81,41,124/- and obtained the recovery certificate. The Recovery Officer after following the procedure, conducted the auction sale of the said land namely Plot No. C-4/1 and Plot No. C-4/2, situated at Gondia Industrial Area. The accused purchased the said land in the auction sale. The Recovery Officer issued a recovery certificate in favour of the accused on 6th August, 2008. The auction sale and recovery certificate was challenged before the Debt Recovery Tribunal-II, New Delhi. The Debt Recovery Tribunal-II, New Delhi by order dated 6th October, 2008, set aside the auction sale and recovery certificate issued in favour of the accused. The Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Delhi dismissed the appeal filed by the accused against the said order. The writ petition filed by the accused, challenging the order of the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal, was also dismissed by the Delhi High Court by order dated 4th May, 2010. The accused challenged the said order passed by the Delhi High Court in the Supreme Court by filing Special Leave Petition. The Special Leave Petition was dismissed on 27th September, 2010. It is the case of prosecution that on 1st August, 2010, the accused represented the informant that he has become an absolute owner on the basis of the recovery certificate and as such executed a lease agreement in favour of the informant. The lease agreement was for a period of 12 months commencing from 1st August, 2010. The possession of the land was handed over to the informant.

4. It is stated that the accused concealed from the informant the orders passed till the execution of lease deed with regard to setting aside of the auction sale. It is further stated that the accused was never put in possession of the land. He represented that he had taken the possession of the land and as such was competent to hand over the possession of the land to the informant. The informant on initiation of proceeding by the Recovery Officer after dismissal of the Special Leave Petition, came to know about the real state of affairs. The Recovery Officer in the said proceeding appointed a Court Receiver for taking possession of the property and for fresh sale of the said property. A direction was issued by the Recovery Officer on receipt of the report from the Court Receiver, to