SHAILESH SINGH Vs. STATE OF C.G.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) JUDGMENT <DJG>P.SAM KOSHY,J.</DJG> The present petition under Sec. 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.) has been filed assailing the order dated 1.10.2014 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Surajpur in Criminal Case No.1655 of 2012. Vide the said impugned order, the Court below has allowed the application under Sec. 319 Crimial P.C. preferred by the prosecution, whereby it has been ordered for impleading Petitioner Shailesh Singh also as one of the accused in Crime No.200 of 2012 registered at Police Station Bishrampur, District Surajpur.

(2.) The brief facts relevant for adjudication of the present case is that one Vinod Kumar Rai, who is the Complainant in the said case lodged a complaint before the Police Station Bishrampur alleging that the accused persons in the case, namely, Vinod Das, Smt. Gulabvati Das, Pramod Kumar Das and Nand Kumar alias Nandu had taken an amount of Rs.4.5 Lakhs from the Complainant on the pretext of getting employment with the Railway Department. The police registered an offence against them under Sec. 420 read with Sec. 34 of the Indian Penal Code. Subsequently, the matter was put to trial before the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Surajpur and Complainant Vinod Kumar Rai was examined as PW-1 on 18.6.2013. While his statement was being recorded, there was a specific averment made by the Complainant that he had deposited an amount of Rs.50,000.00 in the bank account held by present Petitioner Shailesh Singh, son of Ramnarayan with the State Bank of India, Bishrampur Branch. Further, the prosecution found that in the course of investigation, the investigating agency could not trace said Shailesh Singh for want of proper address and, therefore, he was not proceeded against and the prosecution immediately moved an application under Sec. 319 Crimial P.C. (Annexure P-4 with the present petition) on 7.9.2013 and the Court below upon considering the application under Sec. 319 Crimial P.C. and hearing the parties vide the impugned order dated 1.10.2014 allowed the same and ordered for making the present Petitioner to be also made an accused to take cognizance against Petitioner Shailesh Singh and ordered for issuance of summons against Shailesh Singh. It is this order dated 1.10.2014 which is under challenge in the present petition.

(3.) Learned Counsel for the Petitioner assailing the said order submits that in fact there was no material whatsoever on the part of the prosecution to implicate the Petitioner in the said offence and the Court below has erred in not appreciating the statement of the Complainant in its proper perspective and has committed an error while allowing the application under Sec. 319 Crimial P.C. According to the Petitioner, the order dated 1.10.2014 was not a stay order, there was no sufficient reasons assigned by the Court below while allowing the application under Sec. 319 Crimial P.C. According to the Petitioner, the Court below ought to have prima facie took note whether there was any role played by the Petitioner in the commission of the offence and if there was no role played whatsoever, allowing of the application under Sec. 319 Crimial P.C. was bad in law and, therefore, deserves to be set aside/quashed. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner relied upon a decision of the Supreme Court in Hardeep Singh Vs. State of Punjab, (2014) 3 SCC 92. According to the Petitioner, there has to be a cogent and strong material while considering the application under Sec. 319 Crimial P.C. against any person sought to be made as an accused. In the instant case, no such strong piece of evidence was available and, therefore, the Court below has committed an error in law and on facts while allowing the application under Sec. 319 Crimial P.C.