Abhijit S/O Jayant Chaudhari (In ... vs State Of Mah., Thr. P.S.O. Civil ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 3354 Bom

Judgment

                                                                  revn80.20 21

                                       1

        IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
                   NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR

                   CRIMINAL REVISION NO.80 OF 2020

Abhijit s/o Jayant Chaudhary,
Aged 34 years, occupation : Nil, R/o
Plot No.2, flat No.1, S.A.Road,
Laxminagar, Nagpur.
Presently in jail.                              ..... Applicant.

                                :: V E R S U S ::

State of Maharashtra,
Through PSO Civil Lines,
Akola, taluka and district Akola.         ..... Non-applicant.
===================================
Shri M.V.Rai, Counsel for the applicant.
Mrs.Mrunal Barabde, Addl.P.P. for the State.
===================================

                CORAM           : V.M.DESHPANDE, J.

                DATE            : FEBRUARY 23, 2021

ORAL JUDGMENT

1. Heard learned counsel Shri M.V.Rai for the applicant

and learned Additional Public Prosecutor Mrs.Mrunal Barabde for

the State. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. Heard finally

by consent of learned counsel for parties.

.....2/-

Judgment

revn80.20 21

2. By this revision, the applicant is challenging order date

20.2.2020 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Amravati

below Exhibit 84 in Special MPID Case No.34/2015 whereby

learned Judge below rejected application filed on behalf of the

applicant for his discharge from Crime No.291/2014.

3. A only submission made on behalf of learned counsel

for the applicant is that though the applicant is a director of

Wasankar Wealth Management Co.Pvt.Ltd., his role is not

crystallized in the prosecution case and, therefore, he be

discharged.

4. Per contra, learned Additional Public Prosecutor

Mrs.Mrunal Barabde for the State supported reasoning given by

learned Judge below.

5. Crime No.291 of 2014 is registered for offences

punishable under Sections 406, 420, 409, 120-B read with Section

34 of the Indian Penal Code and read with Section 3 of the MPID

Act, 1999 with Frezarpura Police Station, district Amravati on the

.....3/-

Judgment

revn80.20 21

report lodged by one Sanjay Shelke. The report was lodged

against one Prashant Wasankar, Bhagyashri Wasankar, Vina

Wasankar, Chandrakant Rai, Abhijeet Chaudhary, and Manoj

Pande. Gist of allegations in the First Information Report is that

persons named in the First Information Report including the

present applicant, allured the first informant and on the

allurement the first informant invested money with Wasankar

Wealth Management Co.Pvt.Ltd. and they failed to repay the

amount invested by the first informant with the said financial

establishment.

6. In the First Information Report, the complainant has

specifically stated that along with other co-accused the present

applicant also gave allurement to him and his wife for investment

of their hard earned money in the said company on the pretext

that they will be able to get double of the amount which they will

be investing and relying on the allurement made by the applicant

and others the first informant deposited amount.

.....4/-

Judgment

revn80.20 21

7. Chargesheet is filed. During course of investigation, it

was found that the applicant who is one of directors of the said

company has cheated hundreds of depositors and has siphoned

their money. The applicant is arrested on 13.8.2014. It is reported

to this Court by learned counsel for the applicant that in spite of

applicant's repeated attempts to get himself released on bail, the

bail is denied to him by Court below as well as by this Court. It is

also reported to this Court that the applicant's bail application is

also rejected by this Court after filing of chargesheet and presently

he is in jail.

8. Prima facie, it is not disputed before this Court by

learned counsel for the applicant that the said Wasankar Company

is a financial establishment as contemplated under Section 3 of the

MPID Act. Admittedly, the applicant is a director. Statements of

depositors also show that the applicant has taken active role in

alluring various depositors of the said Wasankar Company. In the

First Information Report, specific allegations are made against the

applicant.

.....5/-

Judgment

revn80.20 21

9. At the stage of framing of charge, the Court need not

evaluate evidence of the prosecution as to whether the person who

has filed application for discharge is required to be acquitted. What

is to be seen at the stage of framing of charge whether sufficient

material is there against the said persons to frame charge. It will

of course be open for the prosecution to lead evidence during the

course of the trial to bring home guilt of the persons against whom

charge is framed.

10. It is trite law that even if there is a grave suspicion

against persons against whom charge is framed, that is sufficient

to frame charge. It will be useful to refer to paragraph No.15 of

the judgment of the Honourable Apex Court in the case of Central

Bureau of Investigation, Hyderabad vs. K.Narayana Rao, reported

at (2012)9 SCC 512 and the said is reproduced herein below :

"From the above decisions, it is clear that at the initial stage, if there is a strong suspicion which leads the court to think that there is ground for presuming that the accused has

.....6/-

Judgment

revn80.20 21

committed an offence, in that event, it is not open to the court to say that there is no sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused."

11. In the present case, specific allegations are made

against the applicant, one of directors of Wasankar Company. Not

only that in the First Information Report itself the first informant

has made specific allegation that believing the allurement of the

applicant he and his wife invested money.

12. In this view of the matter, learned Judge below was

right in rejecting the application filed by the applicant refusing to

discharge. No case is made out. The criminal revision is rejected.

Rule is discharged.

JUDGE

!! BRW !!

...../-