Order on Board

Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice

30 .04.2024

1. Heard Mr. Y.C. Sharma, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Vishal Chandrawanshi, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. Ranbir Singh Marhas, learned Additional Advocate General, appearing for the respondents/State.

2. By the present petitions the petitioners seek to challenge the charge sheet which was made out of Crime No. 138/10 at Police Station Palari, Raipur in the Criminal Case No. 1638/12, thereby implicating the name of the petitioners as a co-accused in crime by the mean of supplementary charge-sheet No. 68A/11 dated 16.08.2011 and registered the offence under Section 120, 120B, 409, 411, 414, 420 of the Indian Penal Code (for short, the IPC) and Section 4 and 5 of the Prize Chits and Money Circulation Scheme (Banning) Act, 1978 (for short, the Act of 1978) against the petitioners having no jurisdiction whatsoever and also without having the ingredient which would attract the aforesaid offences.

3. The facts of the case are that a complaint has been registered by the complainant against the Director and Operator of M/s Royal Vision Care Marketing and Service Pvt. Ltd. being involved in the Money Circulation Scheme (Chit Fund Scheme). Subsequently, the main accused, namely, M. Velayuth Kumar, who was the director of the said Chit Fund Company was arrested by the Police Authorities and after completing the investigation Police had filed the charge-sheet against the accused. During investigation, the accused M. Velayuth Kumar has given the statement to the Police that he has entered into an agreement of sale of land situated at Village Ganuad, Tehsil-Arang, P.H. No. 140/19 and Police Station Mandirhasaud with M/s Matoshree Developers, a Partnership Firm, whose partners are namely, Umashankar Shrivastava, Mukta Shrivastava, Sunil Kumar Ojha and Subhash Chandra Sharma. On further investigation, the Police Authorities came to the finding that the partners of the M/s Matoshree Developers are not the owner of the some of the land which were mentioned in the agreement and therefore, implicated the name of the partners of the said firm in teh aforesaid crime, which originally was the case of cheating by mean of Chit Fund Company by investing money from the various investors. Hence, these petitions.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Police of the Police Station Palari has no jurisdiction to register the offence against the petitioners. He further submits that the trial is at conclusive stage, therefore, he does not want to press these petitions.

5. Learned State counsel submits that after registration of the FIR Investigation has been carried out and collected an evidence and during course of the investigation recorded under section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the present petitioners as the present petitioners who are partner of Matoshree Developers have executed a forged and fabricated agreement on 04/07/2019 for purchasing 20.44 Hectare land Rs. 23,50,000/- per acre and had obtained consideration amount from the main accused namely M. Velayutha of Rs. 5 Crores (Rs. 2 Crores through cheque of Rs. 1 Crore through RTGS and Rs. 2 Crores by cash) whereas as per the said agreement dated 04/07/2009 no land is recorded in the revenue records at Village Ganauda, Patwari Halka No. 140/19 District Baloda Bazar-Bhatapara in the name of M/s Matoshree Developers and, thus, has prepared a forged and fake agreement and despite no land has been recorded in the name of M/s Matoshree Developers at Village Ganaud in the revenue records the agreement has been executed and by playing fraud the partners of M/s Matoshree Developers had obtained an amount of Rs. 5 Crores from the main accused M. Velayutha, whereas the said amount has fraudulently obtained by the said accused from the complainant and other villagers by alluring them in the name of high returns and assurance and thus, the police has filed charge sheet against the present pet