SARVESH DHEER Vs. MANJU UPENDRA SANDILYA AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition has been preferred against the order dated 13.12.2012, passed by the Second Additional Sessions Judge, Raipur, in Criminal Revision No.155/2012, whereby the complaint case registered against the respondent Nos.1 and 2 has been quashed and they have been discharged.

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that respondent Nos.1 and 2 approached the parents of the applicant/complainant stating that they want to establish an educational institute in the name and style of Gyan Ganga Education Academy. On being induced, the parents of the applicant advanced Rs.1,50,000/- on 12.09.1991 as loan @ 15% interest. It was assured that share in the academy shall be allotted to the applicant and also assurance was given that the applicant will be appointed as director of the academy. Applicant was minor at that time, hence, all the transaction was between father of applicant - B. K. Dheer and the respondent Nos.1 and 2. Gyan Ganga Education Academy, Raipur was registered on 17.02.1992, but the amount paid on behalf of the applicant were not entered in the cash book to avoid payment of interest.

(3.) An agreement was entered between Smt. Suman Dheer, Upendra Shandilya, Ravindra Pal Singh & Smt. Raj Kumari Kanda and the academy was established as company Gyan Ganga Education Institute Private Limited. The registers, accounts and membership registers were manipulated by the accused persons. No interest was paid by the respondent accused persons and on their demand further Rs.1,65,000/- was advanced by the father of the applicant on 19.11.1992 through cheque. After death of Upendra Shandilya, party to the agreement, respondent accused persons, were made directors of the company, who have refused to provide with the accounts of company to the applicant, no share were allotted to the applicant and neither the applicant has been named as director of the company. On these grounds, a complaint case was filed before the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Raipur. By order dated 08.03.2001, cognizance was taken by the trial Court for trial of offence under Sections 420, 406/34 of the Indian Penal Code against the respondents/accused persons. After closure of evidence before charge, application was filed by the respondent/accused persons under Section 245 of Cr.P.C. praying for discharge. This application was rejected by the order dated 17.04.2012. This order was challenged in the revision before the revisional Court below and the revisional Court by allowing the revision petition has quashed the complaint case registered against the respondent Nos.1 and 2 and they have been discharged.