Mahesh Chandra vs State Of U P And 9 Others
2021 Latest Caselaw 1984 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

?Court No. - 74
 

 
Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 577 of 2021
 

 
Petitioner :- Mahesh Chandra
 
Respondent :- State Of U P And 9 Others
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Radhey Shyam Singh,Mahendra Kumar Maurya
 
Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Dinesh Tiwari
 

 
Hon'ble J.J. Munir,J.

The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hathras, in Miscellaneous Case No.58 of 2012, (arising out of Case Crime No.366 of 2018), under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 472, 506 IPC, Police Station Sikandrarau, District Hathras, has accepted the Final Report No.12 of 2019. This order has been affirmed in Revision by the learned Sessions Judge, Hathras vide judgment and order dated 23.10.2020, rendered in Criminal Revision No.49 of 2020. The case against the respondent Nos. 6 to 10, brought by the petitioner, who is the complainant, is that the said respondents in connivance with each other, won over the petitioner's confidence and made him part with a sum of Rs.1 Crore, 80 Lacs, to secure employment for some 18 boys in the Health Department who are members of the petitioner's family. The promised appointments to be secured were on posts of Clerks in the concerned department. The complainant alleges that he was cheated.

The police investigated the matter and did not find even a shred of evidence to substantiate the allegations. The Magistrate, by a well reasoned order, has accepted the Final Report finding no evidence to reject the same. The Magistrate has reasoned that at the relevant period of time, there was demonitisation and it is unbelievable that the said sum of money could ever be paid in cash. The Magistrate has also recorded that it is unbelievable that Rs.1 Crore, 80 Lacs,would have changed hands in the Court compound after being counted there. The Magistrate has also noted that there is no independent witness about the transaction. It has also been remarked that the names of the 18 boys, for whom the promised employment was the basis of cheating, have not been disclosed. So far as the allegations regarding forged appointment letters is concerned, the Magistrate has recorded that no evidence about these have been given. This order has been affirmed in Revision.

This Court has perused the material on record and finds that there is no palpable error in the impugned orders, which may require interference by this Court. This particularly so as the Courts below have taken a reasonable and plausible view of the evidence on record.

This petition fails and is dismissed.

Order Date :- 3.2.2021

NSC