CHAMPA DEVI Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Criminal revision has been filed on behalf of the two petitioners namely Champa Devi and Radha Gupta being aggrieved and dissatisfied by the order dated 27.07.2015 passed by Shri Manoranjan Kumar, Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Dhanbad in G.R. No. 392 of 2012, whereby after hearing the parties, an application filed on behalf of the petitioners under Section 239 of the Cr.P.C. was dismissed. Court has come to the conclusion that there are sufficient materials on record to frame charges under Sections 406, 420 and 506/34 of the I.P.C. against the petitioners and petitioners were directed to remain physically present on 12.08.2015 for framing of charges.

(2.) The fact giving rise to the instant revision application is that one Pradeep Kumar Sonthalia, opposite party no. 2 filed C.P. Case No. 154 of 2012 before the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dhanbad against one B.N. Hotels Pvt. Ltd., a limited liability company duly incorporated under the Companies Act having its office at Gupta Bhawan, Main Road, Jharia, Dhanbad represented through its Director, Sri Rajendra Kumar Gupta and against Rajendra Kumar Gupta, which was referred under Section 156 (3) of the Cr.P.C. by the learned CJM, Dhanbad to the concerned police station for investigation, wherein the complainant / opposite party no. 2 has alleged that he is Director of Shri Ram Multicom Pvt. Ltd. - a company incorporated under Companies Act, 1956, having its office at 221, Shri Ram Plaza, P.O. - Bank More, P.S. - Bank More, District - Dhanbad and the said company of the complainant is engaged in the business of land development through construction of buildings, apartments, residential houses across the State of Jharkhand.

(3.) The accused no. 1 is a company floated and promoted by accused no. 2, and his family members, who happens to be Director of accused no. 1. The accused no. 1 has landed property on its name measuring 73 decimals situated at Dhaiya near C.D. Singh Colony, detailed description of the plot is given and the said land was mortgaged with United Bank of India, Dhanbad against loan taken by accused no. 2 in the name of their family members floated company namely M/s Work Metal Movers. The United bank of India had initiated a proceeding against M/s Work Metal Movers and accused no. 2 in Debt Recovery Tribunal at Ranchi. It is further alleged that Rajendra Kumar Gupta approached the complainant and offered him the subject land for its development and requested complainant to pay him Rs. 55 lacs as advance, initially for liquidating the loan liability of United Bank of India and for getting the DRT case disposed of. On the assurance given by accused Rajendra Kumar Gupta that the document pertaining to the subject land would be released from United Bank of India, if the aforesaid payment is made. It is further alleged that development agreement was signed by the complainant and accused no. 2 - Rajendra Kumar Gupta and it was agreed that a token amount of Rs. 5,01,000/- would be given to accused no. 1 - B.N. Hotels Pvt. Ltd. and Rs. 40 lacs would be given in the account of M/s World Metal Movers of the accused no. 2. After payment of aforesaid money to the accused persons, they ultimately ended up getting the subject land released from the mortgage from United Bank of India by entering into settlement with the concerned Bank at DRT Ranchi. Further, in view of the terms and condition of the development agreement, and assurances made by the accused no. 2, the complainant requested the accused no. 2 to handover the possession of the subject land and gave power of attorney to start development work over it, but he delayed in giving power of attorney and only on 004.2008, the Rajendra Kumar Gupta handed over the possession of the subject land to the complainant and further the complainant constructed the part of the first floor out of his own fund and invested further Rs. 2,95,04,680/- in the year 2008-09 and 2009-10 and the estimated interest on upto 31.12.2011 came to around Rs. 2,26,55,200/- (totalling around Rs. 5,21,59,889.00 except administrative and other expenditure) as per report given by the Chartered Accountant. The complainant kept on requesting the accused no. 2 to handover documents, which the bank was requiring, for the subject land for mortgaging the land, but the accused no. 2 refused to handover the same to the complainant causing huge financial loss to the complainant. On the basis of aforesaid allegation, instant case was instituted.