JUDGMENT

S. K. SAHOO, J. - The petitioner Biswajit Mohanty has filed this application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 challenging the order dated 21.09.2011 passed by the learned S.D.J.M., Puri in G.R. case No.1126 of 2011 in taking cognizance of offences under Sections 420, 406 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and issuance of process against him. The said case arises out of Kumbharpada P.S. Case No.161 of 2011.

2. The opposite party no.2 Smt. Sabita Parija filed a complaint petition in the Court of learned S.D.J.M., Puri, on the basis of which I.C.C. Case No.245 of 2011 was instituted. The said complaint petition was forwarded to the Inspector in Charge of Kumbharpada police station under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. and accordingly, Kumbharpada P.S. Case No.161 of 2011 was registered under Sections 406, 420 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioner and one Pratibha Singh @ Sila Singh. On completion of investigation, charge sheet was placed against the petitioner and Pratibha Singh @ Sila Singh under Sections 406, 420 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and the learned S.D.J.M., Puri on receipt of the charge sheet passed the impugned order.

3. As per the complaint petition, it is the case of the opposite party no.2-complainant that she is a half-educated poor lady and used to maintain her family doing labour works. The co-accused Pratibha Singh @ Sila is a clever, shrewd and educated lady. The petitioner is the brother of co-accused Pratibha Singh. Both the accused persons with ill-intention gave false assurance to the opposite party no.2 and other poor ladies to become the members of Share Micro Fin Ltd. (hereafter ‘the company’) so that they can avail loan for the purpose of doing business. The opposite party no.2 being moved by such allurement, agreed to become the member of the company and co-accused Pratibha Singh formed a group and she became the leader of the group. The co-accused Pratibha Singh collected voter identity card, electric bill, ration card, BPL card from the opposite party no.2 and others and also took their signatures in some documents. The accused persons did not give any loan amount to the opposite party no.2 or other assured persons. In the month of May 2011, the employees of the company came to the opposite party no.2 and asked for payment of the installment of the loan dues. When the opposite party no.2 told them that she had not availed any loan, the employees of the company showed documents to her relating to grant of loan and co-accused Pratibha Singh receiving the loan amount from the company on behalf of the opposite party no.2. When the opposite party no.2 went to meet the co-accused Pratibha Singh, she found that the said accused had left somewhere after locking the door of the rented house. When the petitioner was approached, he called co-accused Pratibha Singh and both the accused persons confessed to have misappropriated the loan amount and spent the same in business purpose and they assured to refund the loan amount and also the documents which had been taken from the opposite party no.2 and others. On 14.04.2011 an agreement was executed between the parties relating to the clearance of the loan amount and closing the loan account. In spite of such agreement, neither the accused persons repaid the loan amount which they had taken from the company nor did they return back the documents which they had taken from the opposite party no.2.

4. Mr. Santanu Ku. Sarangi, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that the allegations leveled in the F.I.R. are false, baseless and unfounded and there is no supporting material/documentary evidence to show the justification for submission of charge sheet against the petitioner. It is further contended that the main allegation is against co-accused Pratibha Singh who obtained the loan from the company for opposite party no.2 and others and did not give it to those pe