O.P. JULKA Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a criminal revision petition under Sections 397/401, Cr.P.C. preferred by the petitioner assailing an order dated 8.9.2004 passed by learned MM whereby charge under Section 420, IPC has been framed against the petitioner. The allegations against the petitioner were that he posing himself to be an expert in the development of hybrid variety of seeds and purchase and import and sale of seeds and assured the complainant that in case he could invest certain amounts with different breeders/farmers at his instance, he would be able to get him 100% profits on the investments and induced them to make payment amounting to Rs. 4 lac to certain firms and also Rs. 1.20 lac to petitioner on account of establishment expenses and Rs. 2 lac towards other expenses. It was alleged that the intention of the petitioner was to cheat the complainant and keeping in view that object had floated a partnership firm with the complainant and others involving his son as a partner in the partnership deed executed on 27th September, 1995. From the complaint as well as statement of complainant as recorded by learned MM, it was prima facie noted by learned MM that the petitioner had entered into a partnership firm in the name of his son and had signed the partnership deed himself in the name of his son Prashant.

(2.) The only contention that was raised by learned counsel for the petitioner was that the transaction that was entered into by the complainant and other with the petitioner was of civil nature and there was no criminal intention of petitioner to induce or cheat the complainant and other partners.

(3.) It may be that transaction did involve an action of civil nature but having regard to the nature of the allegations as set out in the complaint and from the statement of complainant, it is prima facie seen that the partnership that was floated was on the assurance of high returns and the investments were got made by the petitioner in different firms and also the payments were received by him towards expenses as noted above all these point finger of dishonest intention on the part of petitioner. There is grave suspicious of the petitioner having actively induced the complainant and his partners to part with huge sum of money. The acts committed by the petitioner were apparently having the element of dishonest intention and criminality.