Criminal proceedings cannot be sustained where allegations do not demonstrate fraudulent intent or dishonest misappropriation from the inception of the transaction.

JUDGMENT :

Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.

Heard the parties.

2. This Criminal Miscellaneous Petition has been filed invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure with a prayer to quash and set aside the entire criminal proceeding along with the order dated 20.04.2023 passed in Criminal Revision No.06/2020 by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge-II, Seraikella whereby and where under the learned Addl. Sessions Judge-II, Seraikella has set aside the order dated 10.02.2020 passed by the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Seraikella and directed the learned SDJM, Seraikella to pass a fresh order in view of the discussion made in the said order of the Revisional Court in connection with Protest Petition No.6100 of 2017 arising out of Adityapur P.S. Case No.183 of 2013 and the second prayer has been made for quashing the consequential order dated 16.12.2023 passed by the learned SDJM, Seraikella in Protest Petition No.6100 of 2017 by which the learned SDJM, Seraikella has found prima facie case for the offences punishable under Section 406/420 read with 34 of Indian Penal Code inter alia against the petitioners.

3. The allegation against the petitioners is that on 10.12.2011, the petitioner no.1 came to the residence of the complainant with the proposal of running a petrol pump, which was allotted to the petitioner no.1. The complainant discussed the matter with his own father and on 29.11.2011 both the petitioners along with the co-accused Basudeo Ram Paswan came to the house of the complainant and it was agreed to between the parties that a partnership deed of agreement will be executed in which petitioner no.1 and the complainant will be partners both having equal share in profit and loss and capital will be invested equally. It was also decided that the complainant will spent Rs.35,00,000/- (Thirty five lakhs) as capital which will be adjusted when the work improves and financial position of Rajesh Kumar Paswan is stabilized, accordingly, a deed of agreement was executed between the complainant and the petitioner no.1 in which the petitioner no.2 and others were witnesses. In terms of the said agreement, the complainant made available Rs. 35,00,000/- as initial capital and the business of petrol pump was started. Even after, spending a huge amount from his resources by the complainant, the petrol pump did not yield profit. The petitioners and the co-accused person requested the complainant to give petitioner no.1 Rs.22,000/- per month including petrol and diesel for day to day expenditure of the petitioner no.1 which was to be adjusted in the account and accordingly, the complainant regularly paid Rs.22,000/- per month through cheque or cash for 10 months, but the petitioners and the co-accused persons did not cooperate in running the petrol pump business smoothly and made the request to the authority for stoppage of supply of petrol and diesel. It is alleged that the petitioners deceitfully persuaded the complainant to invest his personal capital of Rs.35,00,000/- and thus the petitioners and the co-accused persons have cheated the complainant and committed criminal breach of trust. The complainant filed Complaint Case No.131/2013 in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Seraikella, Kharsawan which was referred to police under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. basing upon which Adityapur P.S. Case No.183 of 2013 was registered and police after investigation of the case submitted Final Report showing lack of evidence against the petitioners. The complainant filed a protest petition which is registered as Complaint Case No.6100 of 2017.

4. On the basis of the complaint, statement on solemn affirmation of the complainant and the statement of inquiry witnesses, the learned SDJM, Seraikella, Kharsawan vide order dated 10.02.2020 did not find prima facie case for the offences punishable under Section 406, 420, 467, 468, 506, 120B of Indian Penal Code and dismissed the complaint under Section 203 of Cr.P