RAVI CHEMMENCHERI @ C. RAVI Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenge in this revision application is to the order dated 18.01.2012 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, 1 st Class, Bokaro in C.P. Case No.325 of 2002 whereby and whereunder the petition filed at the instance of the petitioners for their discharge under Section 245 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short ,, the Code), has been rejected.

(2.) The facts of the case, which is relevant for the proper appreciation of the issue involved in this case, in short, is that at the instance of the complainant -opposite party no.3 - Birendra Singh, the aforesaid complaint case was filed with the allegation that when the complainant was unemployed and was making attempts in Bokaro Steel Plant for his employment, one of the accused Suresh Kumar Tekriwal approached him and proposed to start a business jointly and with dishonest intention induced him to invest handsome amount in that business. The complainant agreed to support the partnership business but he was not aware that his partner would cheat him and would misappropriate the amount of the partnership business. The complainant entered into the partnership business with the said accused -Suresh Kumar Tekriwal and several partnership firms were constituted including M/s Savita Iron and Steel Processor, M/s Akshay Steel. In terms of the partnership agreement relating to one M/s Akshay Steel, a joint bank account was opened in the Vijaya Bank, Naya More Branch, Bokaro and condition was laid down that the account shall be operated under the joint signatures of both the partners but with utter violation of terms of the said agreement the said accused in connivance with other accused persons Ravi Chemmencheri @ C. Ravi and P. Sampat Kumar Hegde, employee of the said bank, presented different cheques (48 in number) under single signature of accused - Tekeriwal and withdraw Rs.17,20,789/ - on different dates starting from 03.08.1999 to 28.02.2000. The accused persons had full knowledge that the signature of the complainant in his capacity of being first partner of M/s Akshay Steel was required on each cheque but even then amounts were allowed by the petitioners in connivance with other employees under single signature of Suresh Kumar Tekriwal and the petitioners facilitated in commission of agreement of misappropriation of huge amount by preparing forged documents and passing the cheques. During continuation of business, there was some dispute between M/s Akshay Steel with M/s Viswanath Transport and in terms of the agreement, matter was referred to arbitrator which was later on compromised. The said accused -Suresh Kumar Tekriwal received total amount of Rs.15,26,00,000/ - from different companies including the arbitration award amount but no information regarding receiving of the amounts from those companies was given to the complainant and with dishonest intention he misappropriated the huge amount. Besides the above he also received an amount of Rs.26,51,00,000/ - but almost 50% of the aforesaid amount was misappropriated by Suresh Kumar Tekriwal.

(3.) The court of Chief Judicial Magistrate after recording the statement of the complainant on solemn affirmation and statement of other witnesses produced by the complainant, took cognizance of the offence. After appearance of the accused persons, the witnesses were examined and cross examined in terms of Section 244 of the Code and also provided opportunity to the accused to produce their evidence. Before framing of charge, a petition under Section 245 of the Code was filed at the instance of the two petitioners with prayer to discharge them. The court below after examining the evidence on record, the partnership deed and the defence of the accused persons found that there is strong suspicion about the commission of offence and involvement of the accused and sufficient evidence to frame charge against the accused persons and rejected the discharge petition as indicated above. Hence, this revision.