YATINDRA Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This criminal revision under Sec. 397 read with Sec. 401 of the Cr.P.C, 1973 and Sec. 438 of the BNSS, 2023 is preferred challenging the legality of the order dtd. 10/2/2025 in special case No.15/2025 by 19th A.S.J, Indore whereby charges under Sec. 409 read with Sec. 34 and Sec. 420 read with Sec. 34 of the IPC have been framed against the present petitioner/accused in a case arising out of crime no.07/2023 registered at PS Palasia, district Indore (Urban).

(2.) Facts in brief are that a crime no.07/2023 at PS Palasia, district Indore (Urban) was registered on 8/1/2023 on the enquiry of a complaint filed by one Dharmendra Singh s/o Budhipal Singh Rathore. The offence was registered under Sec. 420 and 409 of the IPC and Sec. 6 of the Madhya Pradesh Nikshepako Ke Hiton Ka Sanrakshan Adhiniyam, 2000 against the present petitioner Yatindra Randhar and Sachin Gyaneshwar Dahake and other persons. After investigation, a final report was submitted before the JMFC, Indore under Sec. 420, 409, 406 of the IPC and Sec. 6 of the Madhya Pradesh Nikshepako Ke Hiton Ka Sanrakshan Adhiniyam, 2000. The case was committed to the court of Sessions and vide impugned order the charges under Sec. 409 r/w Sec. 34 and Sec. 420 r/w Sec. 34 of the IPC were framed against the present petitioner.

(3.) Challenging the framing of charges, this criminal revision has been preferred on the ground that there is no direct financial transactions with the complainants. The investigation revealed that no complainants directly deposited funds into petitioner Yatindra Randhar's personal accounts. The only alleged transaction linking the petitioner Yatindra is from one Ravi Solanki, whose amount was later transferred to Comsys Infotech company account demonstrating no personal misappropriation by the petitioner. The petitioner himself is a victim. He also invested a substantial amount (approximately Rs.20.00 lakhs) in Comsys Infotech and Globe 2 Trade companies as per his statement. His son Amogh Randhar similarly invested money in these companies but did not receive their returns. The petitioner is an investor and not an orchestrator of fraud. The petitioner has no role in managing financial affairs of the companies in question i.e. Comsys Infotech and Globe 2 Trade companies and that were owned and managed by co-accused Sachin Gyaneshwar Dahake. All the accounts and financial dealings of above two companies were under Sachin Gyaneshwar Dahake's control and here is no evidence suggesting that the petitioner has any ownership or decision making authority in these entities. The petitioner was a regular investor and not a beneficiary. The FIR does not establish that he withdrew any funds or profited from the schemes. The petitioner did not conceal or abscond. He cooperated with the police in the investigation. He voluntarily made available financial records and his investment details demonstrating good faith. The charges under Sec. 420 and 409 r/w Sec. 34 of the IPC require active fraudulent intent and criminal breach of trust. The petitioner neither had managerial position in the alleged fraudulent companies nor induced the complainant to invest. The police investigation itself confirms that accounts used for fraud were in the name of Comsys Infotech and its associated entities and not in the petitioner's name. There is contradictions in the witnesses statements regarding investment returns that witnesses stated in their statements under Sec. 161 of the Cr.P.C. Trial court failed to justify the application of Sec. 409 of the IPC against the petitioner. He is not within the purview of the persons required for the application of Sec. 409 of the IPC. There is no entrustment of property.