IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr.M.P. No.1664 of 2023 ------

Sanjay Kumar, aged about 39 years, son of Dhaneshwar Kumar, Resident of Village Jealgora, P.O. – K.G. Ashram, P.S. – Govindpur, District - Dhanbad … Petitioner Versus

1. The State of Jharkhand

2. Ranjit Kumar, son of Hare Gopal Kumar, Resident of K.G.

Ashram, P.O.- K.G. Ashram, P.S. – Govindpur, District - Dhanbad … Opposite Parties ------

For the Petitioner : Mrs. Jasvindar Mazumdar, Advocate Mr. Naveen Kumar, Advocate For the State : Mr. Manoj Kr. Mishra, Addl. P.P.

For the O.P. No.2 : Mr. Kumar Nilesh, Advocate ------

P R E S E N T HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY By the Court:- 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, 1973 with a prayer to quash the entire criminal proceeding including the order dated 17.12.2021 passed in connection with Govindpur P.S. Case No.81 of 2017 corresponding to G.R. Case No.1290 of 2017 whereby and where under the learned Judicial Magistrate-1st Class, Dhanbad has taken cognizance of the offence punishable under Section 406, 420, 468, 471 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 3 of the Jharkhand Protection of Interest of Depositors (Financial Establishment) Act, 2011.

3. The brief fact of the case is that the petitioner, in criminal conspiracy with the co-accused persons, deceived and thereby dishonestly induced the complainant/informant to part with Rs.55,000/- in the guise of getting the said amount invested in ‘Redeemable Preference Share’ of the company of the co-accused persons and thereby in criminal conspiracy with the co-accused persons, has cheated the complainant/informant. The informant filed Complaint Case No.201 of 2017 in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dhanbad. The same was referred to police under Section 156 (3) of Cr.P.C. basing upon which Govindpur P.S. Case No.81 of 2017 was registered and police after investigation of the case, besides the offence of cheating also found that the petitioners, in criminal conspiracy with the co-accused persons, has also committed forgery for the purpose of cheating and used forged documents as genuine and also committed criminal breach of trust. On the basis of the charge-sheet submitted by the police, the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance of the said offences as already indicated above.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent and the allegation against him is false. It is next submitted that the petitioner was only the agent of the co-accused persons. The petitioner has not forged any document. The case makes out at best a case of criminal breach of contract. It is next submitted that the informant has failed to make out a case that the petitioner had fraudulent and dishonest intention right at the time of making the promise to pay the matured amount. Hence, it is submitted that the prayer, as prayed for in the instant Cr.M.P., be allowed.

5. Learned Addl. P.P. appearing for the State and the learned counsel for the opposite party No.2 on the other hand vehemently oppose the prayer of the petitioner made in the instant Cr.M.P. and submit that the police, during the investigation of the case, found out the petitioner, having the intention to deceive the complainant/informant since the beginning of the transaction between the parties and knowing pretty well that the co-accused persons were not genuine persons, in criminal conspiracy with the co-accused persons, created forged documents for the purpose of cheating and used the said forged documents as genuine and by using such forged documents as genuine, deceived and dishonestly induced the gullible informant to part with Rs.55,000/-. Under such circumstances, all the offences in respect of which the cognizance has been taken by the learned Magistrate on the basis of the charge-sheet submitted by the police after the investigation of the c