DHARMENDRA BAFNA Vs. KISHAN LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE revision is directed against the order passed by the learned III Metropolitan Magistrate, George Town, Chennai in M.P. No.11979 of 2007 in C.C. No.13970 of 2007 directing further investigation of the case based on the protest petition filed by the respondent/de facto complainant.

(2.) THE sum and substance of the complaint lodged by the respondent/de facto complainant reads as follows:- THE first accused introduced the de facto complainant to the second accused. THE first accused informed the de facto complainant that the second accused was running a jewellery shop in the name and style of R.B. Jewellery at Sowcarpet, Chennai. He was an expert in the trade of buying and selling gold and silver. THE de facto complainant can do very well online business through the second accused and earn huge profits. THE de facto complainant thereupon paid a sum of Rs.4.65 crores to the second accused during the period from 6.10.2005 to 2.12.2005 for the purpose of doing online trading in gold and silver. THE second accused is supposed to buy and sell the stock only with the instructions of the de facto complainant. He enquired the second accused about the status of his account in his business. THE second accused informed him that a sum of Rs.4.95 crores is lying to his credit. THEre was some difference of opinion between the de facto complainant and the second accused over the claim of the de facto complainant that a sum of Rs.5.95 crores should have been lying to the credit of his account. THE de facto complainant approached the second accused on 8.12.2005 at about 5.00 pm and demanded the payment of the said amount. But, the second accused informed him that the money was lying with Shanthilal Surana (A5), Gauthamraj Surana (A6) Vijayaraj Surana (A7) and Dinesh Surana (A8). THE second accused also assured the de facto complainant that he would get back the money from them. On 10.12.2005, the de facto complainant proceeded along with the first and second accused to the aforesaid A5 to A8 and N. Maran (A9) and demanded the money from them. A5 to A9 having denied possession of any money belonging to the de facto complainant threatened him with dire consequences.

(3.) THE second respondent, who is the present investigating officer, laid the final report only as against the first and second accused for offences punishable under sections 406, 420 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code deleting the other accused from the scope of the crime.