RAJ KUMAR Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND ANR.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant miscellaneous petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking quashing of the proceedings in Criminal Regular Case No. 223/2003 going on against the petitioner in the Court of the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mount Abu, district Sirohi for the offences under Sections 406, 420 and 120-B, I.P.C.

(2.) Succinctly stated the facts, relevant and necessary for the disposal of his miscellaneous petition, are that the complainant-respondent No. 2 filed a written complaint in the Court of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Abu Road with the allegations that he was an agent of Sahyog Housing Development (I) Limited, Sirohi and acting on behalf of the said company, he collected money from various persons as Fixed Deposits for one to five years and in turn he entrusted the money so collected to the accused, who are also the representatives of the Sahyog Housing Development Ltd. The complainant alleged that he was assured by the accused that the society is recognised in the States of Rajasthan as well as Gujarat and the deposits made by him continued till 12.5.1994. Thereafter the complainant-respondent No. 2 came to know that the office of the Society at Sirohi had been locked-up and the accused had absconded. Thus, the complainant submitted that he as well as the persons on whose behalf he had collected the money, had been cheated by the accused persons and resultantly he filed the complaint which was forwarded for investigation to police under Sec. 156 (3) Criminal Procedure Code, on which an F.I.R. was registered and the investigation ensued. Subsequent to the investigation, a charge-sheet has been filed by the police against the petitioner and two other persons, viz. Smt. Ruseena Shah and Sikandar Khan for the aforesaid offences. Subsequent to filing of the charge- sheet, cognizance for the offences under Sections 420, 406 and 120-B, Indian Penal Code was taken on 16.7.1998. Thereafter during pendency of the trial, the complainant- respondent No. 2 filed an application for compromise before the learned Magistrate on 24.1.2008 and all the accused persons have been discharged from the offence under Sec. 420 Indian Penal Code in view of the compromise. Now the petitioner has approached this Court seeking quashing of the proceedings pending against him for the offences under Sections 406 and 120-B, Indian Penal Code in the instant matter on the ground that there is no material on record to show that the petitioner is responsible for the commission of the offences in this case. Referring to the documents issued by the Registrar of Companies, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was inducted as a Director of the company on 10.3.1995, i.e. after the offences were committed by the co-accused persons and as soon as the petitioner came to know about the illegal activities of the company, he resigned as a Director of the Company on 11.6.1996. The documents pertaining to the appointment of the petitioner as Director of the company and his resignation from the company as approved by the Registrar of the Companies have been placed on record. Placing reliance on the decisions of the Honble Supreme Court in the cases of Anita Malliotra Vs. Apparel Export Promotion Council & Anr., (2002) 1 SCC 520 and Harsliendra Kuniar D. Vs. Rebatilata Koley etc., JT 2011 (2) SC 586 , learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the documents, which the petitioner relies-on, are public documents and as such the same can be relied upon for the purpose of quashing of the proceedings against the petitioner. Further more referring to the statement of various persons cheated in this case, the learned counsel submits that all the acts of cheating with different investors in this case took place upto the year 1994 after which the company shut down its office at Sirohi and the Directors absconded. Learned counsel submits that the petitioner was inducted as Director of the company subsequent to the happening of the said events and, thus, he cannot be held responsible for the consequences of the acts complained of and as such the prosecution of the petitioner in this case is absolutely unwarranted and deserves to be quashed. He submits that there is no question of any entrustment being made to the petitioner and thus his prosecution for the offence under Sections 406 and 120-B I.P.C.

(3.) Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner.