RAMRATAN BIYANI Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Instant S.B. Criminal Revision Petition is preferred by petitioners-accused Ramratan Biyani, Deepa Biyani and Bhoomi Maheshwari aggrieved from order dtd. 6/3/2024 in Sessions Case No.07/2023, whereby petitioners were charged for offence under Ss. 420, 406, 411, 413, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B IPC.

(2.) Learned counsel for petitioners while placing reliance upon grounds of revision petition submitted that petitioners are innocent persons and they were falsely implicated in the instant case at the whims of complainant. He further submitted that the facts of the instant case clearly indicate that it is a purely commercial and business transaction, wherein due to some dispute between complainant and petitioner No.1, a criminal complaint was filed to settle the dispute. Learned counsel has further submitted that the facts narrated in complaint and also in statement recorded under Sec. 161 Cr.P.C., the complainant has acknowledged receipt of profit and also the information about the transaction at MCX, on several occasions. He further submitted that in a commodity trading, there is a regular and constant variation in the prices of commodity, and this fluctuation is mainly due to variation in prices at international level, and same is also affected from availability of stock and the demand. He further submitted that the complainant has verified his accounts, and also remained well informed.

(3.) He further referred the ingredients under Sec. 415 of IPC and submitted that in order to frame a charge under Sec. 420 IPC, it is necessary that the essential ingredients such as fraudulent and dishonest intention should be proved and same should be with intention to cheat complainant. He also referred the provisions of Sec. 405 and submitted that in order to frame a charge under Sec. 406 IPC, it is necessary that there must be some entrustment of property, which would be dishonestly misappropriated, but there is no evidence to connect the petitioners. He further submitted that there is no evidence to show that the petitioners are habitual in committing offence like 411 IPC, therefore, they cannot be charged for offence under Sec. 413 IPC. He further referred the status of petitioners and submitted that petitioner No.2 is a housewife, whereas petitioner No.3 is a student and both were not aware about transaction between petitioner No.3 and complainant. He also referred the material on record and submitted that initially a case was registered under Ss. 420, 406 and 120-B IPC, but without verification of any detail or record, charges were framed against the petitioners. At last, he submitted that role and involvement of petitioners No.2 and 3 is not proved from evidence on record, and moreover charge under Ss. 411, 413 and 120-B IPC are also not made out against any of the petitioner.