SANDEEP SINGH Vs. NISAR AHMAD DAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners have challenged the complaint filed by respondent against them alleging commission of offences under Sec. 420, 120-B IPC. Challenge has also been thrown to the proceedings initiated by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Anantnag, on the said complaint.

(2.) A perusal of the record shows that the respondent herein has filed a complaint before the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Anantnag, alleging therein that the petitioners have entered into a criminal conspiracy by forming a company, namely, Aizen Communications Pvt. Ltd. It is alleged that the respondent was introduced by petitioner No.2 to other petitioners who were on tour to Kashmir Valley to promote the business of the aforesaid company. A meeting was held by the petitioners with the respondent at Anantnag wherein the respondent was invited to invest money in the company and the company, in return, assured to pay double the amount within a span of three years with bonus. It is alleged that in this regard the petitioners published notices in national as well as local media thereby making false representations in the name of the company, Aizen Communications Pvt. Ltd., with an intention to cheat the public in general and the respondent in particular. It is further alleged that in one of the advertisement notices, it was provided that if anybody pays 51 installments of Rs.4000.00 in one go, the company would return double the amount within three years and will further pay an amount of Rs.1836.00 per working day for 200 days with a foreign tour of 07 days at their expenses. It is averred that the respondent/complainant, believing in these representations, was duped of Rs.3.00 crores. It is further averred that the money that was paid by respondent/complainant was deposited by him in the bank account of the company, the details whereof have been given in the complaint. It is alleged that the petitioners, after collecting huge wealth, stopped communicating and fled away from the Valley thereby committing the offence of cheating. It is also alleged that the petitioners induced the respondent/complainant to deliver the property in the name of the company by making false and deceptive representations. Lastly, it has been alleged that the offences have been committed by the company in connivance with the petitioners.

(3.) The petitioners have urged two grounds. One that the impugned complaint as against the petitioners cannot proceed without impleading the company as an accused. The second ground which has been urged is that the petitioners/accused are residing beyond the limits of local jurisdiction of the trial Magistrate, as such, it was not open to the learned Magistrate to issue process against them without conducting enquiry/investigation in terms of Sec. 202 of the Cr. P. C