SUSHIL DHAR Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition, under section 561 -A Cr.P.C, has been preferred seeking quashment of the order dated 8.12.2003, formulated by Judicial Magistrate Ist Class (Sub Judge ) Jammu, whereby he has held the accused prima facie liable for commission of offences under sections 406, 420, 120 -B RPC and has charged them for the aforesaid offences.

(2.) COMPLAINANT , Gurdev Singh, retired Colonel from Army, filed a written complaint with the Crime Branch, Jammu, alleging therein that he was induced and instigated to invest money for becoming a Carry Forward Agent for the Pharmaceutical Company of the accused, M/S SAMARITAN PHARMA (INDIA) LTD. at the initial stage. The complainant trusted the accused and invested Rs. 2.75 Lacs and got C and F. Subsequently, the complainant, having been further allured by the accused to invest more money for getting distributorship, again arranged Rs. 4 Lacs from UCO Bank Digiana, by mortgaging his house and paid the same to the accused for sending more medicines for distribution. The accused, however, after receipt of the entire amount from the complainant, delayed the dispatch of medicines and later on, when persisted by the complainant, sent expired medicines. It was further alleged in the complaint that the entire amount was invested by the complainant on the dishonest inducement of the accused right from the beginning to defraud him and thereby duped the complainant of the amount invested by him and have committed offence of criminal breach of trust and cheating. A case under sections 420, 406, 120 -B RPC, 138/141 Negotiable Instruments Act stood registered with the Crime Branch and on the conclusion of investigation, challan was presented before the trial court. The trial court, after hearing the parties and examining the record, including the FIR, statements of witnesses recorded under section 161 Cr. P.C and other documents, found that the allegations enumerated in the First Information Report and further supported by evidence collected during investigation, disclosed the commission of offence by the accused persons under sections 420, 406 and 120 -B RPC, for which the accused are required to be charge sheeted, however, discharged the accused for offences under sections 138/141 Negotiable Instruments Act, vide order dated 8.12.2003.

(3.) MR . Abhinav Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioners, vehemently urged that in view of Notification dated 3rd June, 1999, the offences, for which the petitioners have been charged, are not covered within the category of cases required to be investigated by the Crime Branch and on this count alone, order dated 8.12.2003 deserves to be quashed. His further submission is that offences, if at all said to have been committed by the petitioners, are of civil nature. He further submitted that allegations contained in the complaint against the accused do not disclose the commission of offences under sections 406, 420 RPC, for want of essential ingredients.