FAKRE ALAM Vs. STATE OF BIHAR & ANR.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner who is the Branch Manager of Birl India Finance and Investment Co. Ltd., Majhaulia Branch, (hereinafter referred to as "the Company") who alongwith others have been made to figure as accused in Complaint Case No. 1215C of 1998 has prayed for quashing of order dated 10.1.2007 passed therein by Sri R.C. Malviya, learned Judicial Magistrate. West Champaran at Bettiah, whereby his petition for discharge for the criminal liability under Sections 323, 341, 504, 406, 420 I.P.C. has been rejected. The complainant, one Ram Kishore Singh @ Raj Kishore Singh, impleaded herein as O.P. No. 2, filed the aforesaid complaint inter alia alleging that he was acquainted with the petitioner from before and by virtue of that on 30.10.1996 the petitioner alongwith co -accused and witness No. 1 Satendra Kumar Srivastava came to him and introducing himself as Branch Manager of Majhaulia Branch of the Company also introduced the other accused as Director of the Company and witness No. 1 as Agent thereof and persuaded him to open an account with them under the Recurring Deposit Scheme and also assured him that there would be no problem in returning the money since he would personally look after it. Taken by the assurance the complainant opened an account bearing No. R64/553 of Rs. 300/ -per month in the name of his daughter, Nutan Kumari. It is said that on 31.10.1996 both the accused again approached the complainant and informed him about the various beneficial schemes available with the Company and explained that under the Term Deposit Scheme the amount deposited by the consumer would become double in 42 months and swayed by the assurance given by the accused the complainant deposited a sum of Rs. 15,000/ -under that Scheme in which certificate No. 2261 and receipt No. 24260 were issued by the Company. It is further said that in the Recurring Deposit Scheme a total sum of Rs. 1,800/ - deposited through witness No. 1 Satendra Kumar Srivastava at the rate of Rs. 300/ - per month till 27.8.1997. Thereafter the complainant came to know that the Company had wound up and closed and when he contacted the petitioner for withdrawal of the amount deposited by him he kept avoiding making payment under one pretext or the other. Eventually it is said that on 7.9.1998 the complainant went to the house of the petitioner where co -accused alongwith two other persons were present and on demand being made by the complainant both the accused persons started abusing him in filthy language and also assaulted him with fist and slaps as also with belt and refused to pay back the money. It has been alleged that the complainant and his daughter had suffered irreparable loss physically, economically and also in their prestige.

(2.) IT appears that an inquiry was held under Section 202 Cr.P.C. whereafter cognizance under Sections 323, 341, 406, 420 I.P.C. was taken against the accused persons. Thereafter following the procedure laid down in Section 244 Cr.P.C. evidence before charge of P.Ws. 1 and 2 as also the complainant were recorded and on consideration of the materials being brought on record thereunder and the documents, namely, pass -book, money receipts, money -cum -investment receipts, maturity certificate, the learned Magistrate was pleased to find that there was sufficient grounds for framing of charges under the aforesaid sections.

(3.) IT has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that although at the stage of discharge or framing of charge the Court was duty bound to consider the evidence that he had recorded during the procedure laid down under Section 244 Cr.P.C. the Magistrate surprisingly did not consider the same in proper and right perspective. In this connection it was sought to be submitted that the complainant on being examined as P.W. 3 had stated in paragraph 3 of his deposition that he had filed a complaint before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum at Bettiah wherein his complaint was allowed for the payment of the money deposited by him alongwith 18% interest accrued thereupon and whereas the petitioner was exonerated from the liability of payment it was the co -accused, Pramod Kumar Singh the Director of the Company, who had been held liable and responsible and was directed to make payment of the same to the complainant. The complainant also stated that he had not filed any civil suit for redressal of his grievance or for recovery of money deposited by him with the Company.