ORDER

11.08.2017 Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Counsel for opposite party No.2.

2. This application under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioner challenging the order dated 26.02.2007 passed by the learned S.D.J.M., Bolangir in G.R. Case No.447 of 2003 rejecting an application filed under Section 239 of Cr.P.C. to discharge the petitioner from the charges levelled against him. The leaned Addl. Sessions Judge, Bolangir in Criminal Revision No.13/3 of 2007-09 by order dated 03.03.2010 has confirmed the same.

3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the transaction between the petitioner and the complainant was share business. There was no inducement or deception to deliver any property and the dispute, if any is purely civil in nature. The petitioner being a Partner cannot be said to have committed criminal breach of trust of his own business, as such it is a case of civil liability only. In support of his submission he has relied on the decisions reported in AIR 2009 SC 3191 and (2009) 43 OCR (SC) 680. Hence the impugned orders are not sustainable in the eye of law and the same need be interfered with.

4. Learned Counsel for opposite party No.2 however supported the impugned orders and submitted that the Courts below have rightly passed the same. He further submitted that this being a proceeding against the confirming revisional Court’s order, the impugned orders need not be interfered with.

5. The factual matrix of the case are as follows :-

Opposite party No.2 has filed a complaint case in the Court of the learned S.D.J.M., Bolangir, which was registered as I.C.C. No.37 of 2007. In the complaint it was specifically alleged that the complainant was dealing with sales and purchases of shares of different Companies through the petitioner. The said transaction continues on Partnership basis for years. The complainant also sales shares of different Companies by placing order over telephone through the petitioner for which the petitioner issues computerised confirmation note to the complainant. While the transaction was going on between them, on 06.05.2000, it is alleged that the petitioner sent a letter to the complainant stating that he has started online share trading business in the name of “M/s. Samleswari Shares & Securities’. He impressed upon the complainant that he is the owner of the firm even though he was not the sole owner of the above new business firm and by giving that impression he has cheated the complainant.

6. The learned Magistrate directed for investigation of the complaint under Section 156 (3) of Cr. P.C. It appears that the complaint was verified on 07.05.2003 and the First Information Report was registered at Bolangir Town P.S. Case No.214 of 2003. Subsequently the same was registered as G.R. Case No.447 of 2003. After completion of investigation the police submitted charge sheet for commission of offences under Sections 420/406/506 of I.P.C. The learned Magistrate has also taken cognizance of the said offence.

7. After cognizance was taken, the petitioner filed an application under Section 239 of Cr.P.C. before the Court below to discharge him from the charges levelled against him as no case for cheating is made out. The learned Magistrate by order dated 26.02.2007 rejected the application with a finding that there is sufficient materials available in the case record to proceed against the petitioner and the application has been filed only with an intention to delay the proceeding. Being aggrieved the petitioner preferred Criminal Revision No.13/3 of 2007-09 before the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Bolangir. The Revisional Court confirmed the order of the Court below.

8. The facts narrated in the complaint prima facie reveals that the complainant was aggrieved as the petitioner has started a new online share trading business in the name of “M/s. Samleswari Shares & Securities”. On a plain reading of the complaint as well as the statements of the witne