VINAY SINGH Vs. STATE OF M.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Miscellaneous Criminal Case under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is directed against order dated 31-07-2013 passed in Criminal Revision No.222/2010 by Additional Sessions Judge, Tikamgarh, whereby he had affirmed the order dated 17-08-2010 passed in Criminal Case No.804/2006, framing charge against applicant Vinay Singh under sections 420, 120-B & 201 of the Indian Penal Code.

(2.) The facts necessary for disposal of this Miscellaneous Criminal Case under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure may briefly be stated thus:

(3.) For the fear of being dismissed and under the inducement of permanent a Government job, the employees of the school paid different amounts to aforesaid two accused persons. Bharat Soni paid Rs.1.5 lacs to Ramcharan Sahu and Arvind Shrivastava. Shyamlal Raikwar paid Rs.50,000/- to Arvind Shrivastava. Laxminarayan Gupta paid Rs.1,90,000/- to Arvind Shrivastava and Ramcharan Sahu. Pramod Kumar Sharma paid Rs.1,70,000/- to Arvind Shrivastava. Co- accused persons Jaihind and Sohanlal also visited the school on various occasions and exhorted the employees to raise funds for conversion of the school into a Government school; however, when the Government changed, all hopes of takeover of the school by the Government, receded and the employees started demanding their money back from Arvind Shrivastava and Ramcharan Sahu. When no amount was refunded the employees went on a hunger strike and camped in front of the house of Arvind Shrivastava for two days. Arvind Shrivastava told them that the money paid by them had been given to co-accused Sohanlal Dhakad. Thereafter, they went to meet Sohanlal Dhakad at Kailaras, District Shivpuri. On 10-11-2013, Ramcharan Sahu and Arvind Shrivastava took them to the residence of MLA Brajendra Singh. Their they met the present applicant and accused Vinay Singh Rathore, who is brother of the M.L.A. Applicant Vinay Singh Rathore told them that elections were scheduled for 10 th of November. After the elections, their money would be returned. Thereafter, Arvind Shrivastava told them that after the Elections, he had visited applicant Vinay Singh Rathore but he refused to pay the money back; therefore, Arvind Shrivastava is not in a position to refund the money to the school employees. Subsequently, FIR was lodged and charge sheet was filed. Additional charge sheet was filed against applicant Vinay Singh and charges as aforesaid were framed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class.