KRISHAN PAL SINGH CHAUHAN Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a criminal revision filed by complainant Shri Krishan Pal Singh Chauhan and has been directed against the order dated 14th November, 1995 passed by the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Ambala, who allowed the revision petition filed by Shri Parveen Sablok and his wife Smt. Geeta Sablok, and reversed the order dated 25th February, 1995 passed by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Ambala City, who decided to frame the charges against the accused under Sections 420/406/506 read with Section 120-B, Indian Penal Code.

(2.) THE brief allegations of the complainant are that parties to the complaint came in contact with each other in the month of February 1991 and after three-four meetings, accused No. 1, namely, Shri Chuni Lal Sablok started alluring the complainant that he along with accused Nos. 2 and 3, namely, Shri Parveen Sablok and Smt. Geeta Sablok, had started the business of restaurant in the name and style of M/s Fast Food Restaurant at the main road, Ambala City, and they were earning very good income from the said restaurant. All the three accused had hatched a criminal conspiracy to cheat the complainant by way of getting huge amount and in furtherance of this conspiracy, accused No. 1 started saying that the complainant was just like his son and it was a fatherly advice that he should join the business of restaurant as a partner with the accused party. Accused No. 2 claimed that the complainant was just like his brother and accused No. 3 stated that the complainant was just like his brother-in-law and like a family member. Accused Nos. 2 and 3 assured the complainant that he would be given 40% share in loss and profit very honestly and the interest of the complainant would be protected. The complainant was not supposed to join in the active business and was to remain as sleeping partner. Believing the representation of the accused, the complainant started investing the amount in the business of restaurant. Some time the amount was given in the presence of all the three accused and some time in the presence of any of these three accused from July 1991 to 12th September, 1993, and in this manner the complainant paid a sum of Rs. 1,03,250/-. In order to be more sure, a partnership deed was executed on 14.9.1993 between the complainant and accused Nos. 2 and 3. Some columns of the deed were kept blank intentionally by the accused party while stating that partnership deed would be submitted to the Income Tax and Sales Tax Departments after filling the same. All the three partners signed the partnership deed. Even after the execution of partnership deed, complainant kept on investing the amount in the business by way of cheques and cash. All the cheques were in the name of Parveen Sablok and the complainant had paid a total amount of Rs. 1,95,300/-. Even after receiving the amount and execution of the partnership deed, the accused party did not implement the contents of the partnership deed. No account in the joint names of the partners was opened and no account was given to the complainant. Later on, it was revealed that partnership deed was a waste paper and the complainant was further threatened that the complainant would be done to death if he would again demand his share in the business. The accused party totally refused to return the amount paid by the complainant and hence the accused party had cheated the complainant by playing the fraud and they had dishonestly misappropriated and converted the amount of Rs. 1,95,300/- to their own use.

(3.) INVESTIGATION was conducted by the Police and during the course of investigation, accused No. 1 Chuni Lal was found innocent, while accused Nos. 2 and 3, namely, Parveen Sablok and Smt. Geeta Sablok, respectively, were arrested by the Police. The documents were taken into possession by the Police vide separate recovery memos. and after the completion of the investigation of the case, Parveen Sablok and Smt. Geeta Sablok were challaned for the offences under Sections 420, 406 and 506 read with Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code. The copies of the documents were supplied to the accused as required under the law and the learned Magistrate vide order dated 25th February, 1995 framed the charges against Parveen Sablok and his wife Smt. Geeta Sablok, as stated above and the reasons given by the learned Magistrate are contained in the following paras, which I would like to reproduce :-