VIJAY KUMAR DHIR Vs. VINAY JAIN AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this single judgment, I will dispose of CRM No. M - 25881 of 2014 and CRM No. M -32344 of 2014, titled as Vijay Kumar Dhir Versus Vinay Jain and others, filed under Sec. 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, arising out of the same order dated 3.7.2014 (Annexure -P -15), passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Moga. For brevity, the facts are extracted from CRM No. M -25881 of 2014.

(2.) The brief history of the case is that Vijay Kumar Dhir (petitioner) filed a criminal complaint before the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Moga, against Luxmi Narayan Shandyal son of Hanuman Parshad Shandyal, Vijay Jain, Vinay (Vini) Raj Modi, Ravinder Pal Singh, Director, Gian Ganga Education Institute and Sachin Shandyal son of Rupinder Shandyal under Ss. 420/468/465/467/469/471/120B IPC, alleging that accused No. 1 Luxmi Narayan Shandyal and his son Upinder Shandyal (since deceased) were the Chairman -cum -Managing Director of Gian Ganga Education Institute, Raipur. It was alleged that in July, 1995, Suman Dhir wife of Balraj Kumar, who is elder brother of the complainant, came to the house of complainant at Kot Ise Khan, District Moga and represented that they want to open a school in the name of Gian Ganga Education Institute and they represented that an agreement was signed by four persons, namely, Raj Kumari Kanda, sister -in -law (Bhabi of the complainant), Rupinder Kumar Shandyal and Ravinder Pal Singh. They demanded Rs. 4 lacs from the complainant and gave assurance to the complainant that he will be given interest at the rate of 18% per annum and 16% out of the profit. The complainant alleged that on 15.7.1995, he gave a draft of Rs. 2 lacs in favour of accused No. 1 and his son Upinder Shandyal and agreed to send Rs. 2 lacs at Bhopal. The complainant sent two drafts dated 4.3.1996 of Rs. 50,000/ - each and again on 2.9.1996, sent another draft of Rs. 1 lac. In this way, the complainant paid Rs. 4 lacs to accused No. 1, namely, Luxmi Narayan Shandyal and his son Upinder Shandyal (now deceased). The complainant was never repaid the principle amount or interest or profit. According to the complainant, his sister -in -law sent a notice dated 3.7.1997 to the accused party and in reply thereof, the accused party replied that they never agreed to pay interest at the rate of 18% per annum or any profit. It is further stated that the amount was not released to the complainant. After the death of Upinder Sandyhal in 1998, accused called a joint house meeting and appointed Luxmi Narayan Shandyal and Sachin Shandyal as Directors of the Company, who have now refused to pay any amount or interest. Accused have now finally refused to pay the amount. In this way, they have committed the offence, alleged in the complaint. It also comes out from the order of charge that accused No. 1 Luxmi Narayan Shandyal had died during the pendency of the complainant and, therefore, he was shown dead in the chargesheet. In this way, Vijay Jain, Vinay (Vini) Raj Modi, Ravinder Pal Singh and Sachin Shandyal are facing the trial.

(3.) On the basis of preliminary evidence, the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Zira, vide order dated 12.9.2001, summoned the accused under Sec. 420 IPC only.