Dilip Bang @ Dilip Bag vs The State Of Jharkhand
2023 Latest Caselaw 1122 Jhar

                                                   1                    Cr.M.P. No. 649 of 2012


                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                            Cr.M.P. No. 649 of 2012
                 Dilip Bang @ Dilip Bag                       ... Petitioner
                                       -Versus-
            1.   The State of Jharkhand
            2.   Rakesh Kumar Singh                           ... Opposite Parties
                                           -----

            CORAM:       HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI
                                           -----
            For the Petitioner       : Mr. Indrajit Sinha, Advocate
                                       Mr. Ajay Kumar Sah, Advocate
            For the State            : Mr. Fahad Allam, A.P.P.
            For O.P. No.2            : Mr. Amit Kumar Das, Advocate
                                           -----

08/15.03.2023     Heard Mr. Indrajit Sinha assisted by Mr. Ajay Kumar Sah, learned

counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Amit Kumar Das, learned counsel for opposite

party no.2 and Mr. Fahad Allam, learned counsel for the State.

2. This petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 14.03.2012

passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1 st Class, Jamshedpur in C/1 Case

No.2327 of 2010, whereby, the petition filed under Section 205 Cr.P.C. has

been rejected.

3. The case was registered on the complaint made by the complainant

alleging therein that the complainant has run the business of Public

Distribution system at Sarjamda, Parsudih, Jamshedpur. In order to have a

secured future, the complainant has purchased 2061 number of shares of

different companies worth Rs. 1,00,000/- approx. On 16.7.2009 at 9 AM the

complainant while was in his shop, the accused no. 3 and 4 came to the

complainant and introduced themselves to be the officials of M/s. Nirmal

Bang Securities Limited and induced the complainant to invest money in

their firm, assuring the complainant that the complainant would got

lucrative amount of interest against such investment which is commonly

known as port folio Management and the said investment, as assured by the

complainant would without any risk. The accused No. 3 and 4 further

induced the complainant that if the complainant having any share of any

company, in his possession, to transfer the same in favour of the accused

No. 1 against which the complainant as assured by the accused No. 3 and 4

would get lucrative amount of profit and asked the complainant to come to

their local office at Sana Complex, Thakur Bari Road, Sakchi, Jamshedpur.

After having been induced by the accused No. 3 and 4 the complainant

went to the office of the accused No. 1 on 20.07.009 where the accused No.

3 and 4 introduced the accused No. 1 and 2 being the Director and Regional

head of M/s Nirmal Bang Securities. All the accused persons made the same

inducement what was induced by the accused No. 3 and 4 asking the

complainant to invest money with M/s. Nirmal Bang Securities and to

transfer his shares in favour of M/s. Nirmal Bang Securities and assured the

complainant to get a lucrative amount of profit against such investment. In

order to have a secured future and being induced by the accused persons,

the complainant sometime in the last week of July, 2009 opened a DMat

account with M/s. Nirmal Bang Securities upon depositing a nominal amount

of Rs. 550/-and thereafter on 01.08.2009, 29.10.2009, 18.11.2009 and

27.11.2009 the complainant paid the accused persons a total sum of Rs.

1,80,000/- through different cheques drawn on ICICI Bank Limited

Jamshedpur. It was further alleged that after 2/3 days of opening DMat

account, the complainant also being induced by the accused persons and

transferred 2061 number of shares to M/S. Nirmal Bang Securities Limited.

When one year have passed, the complainant did not get any amount as

assured by the accused persons, against the investments made by the

complainant, the complainant visit to the local office of the accused persons

number of times but on all occasions he found the local office of the

accused persons are closed. Thereafter the complainant met two staff of the

accused persons namely Dilip Kumar and Miss Susmita and asked about the

accused persons upon which the said witnesses told the complainant that

the accused persons upon misappropriating the hard earned money of

several poor investors fled away closing the office and even they have not

been paid their salaries. Thus all the accused persons by playing deception

upon the complainant, induced him to invest the aforesaid amount and to

transfer the aforesaid shares in favour of M/s. Nirmal Bang Securities and

misappropriated the same inconvenience with each other and have cheated

the complainant and others in the manner as aforesaid.

4. Mr. Sinha, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the

petitioner is one of the Director of the company and he is ready to give

undertaking before the learned court for appearance on the direction of the

learned court. He further submits that there are several judgments whereby

the petition under Section 205 Cr.P.C. has been allowed. He also submits

that there is no serious allegation against the petitioner and in that view of

the matter, the impugned order is bad in law.

5. On the other hand, Mr. Amit Kumar Das, learned counsel for opposite

party no.2 submits that there is allegation against the petitioner and not

only the complainant in this case, but other persons have also been

cheated. The petitioner is the Director of the chit fund company. He further

submits that in pursuance to the order passed in the PIL, chit fund matters

have been taken by the CBI and investigation is conducted by the CBI in

different matters. He submits that serious allegation is there and on these

grounds, he submits that this petition is fit to be dismissed.

6. In view of the above submissions of the learned counsel for the

parties, the Court has gone through the materials on the record

including the complaint petition as well as the order dated 14.03.2012 by

which the petition filed by the petitioner under Section 205 Cr.P.C. has been

rejected. There is allegation against the petitioner of cheating sum of

Rs.1,80,000/-. Further allegations are there that this petitioner has

cheated other persons also and he was operating a company wherein the

chit fund nature of transactions are taken place. There are limitation of

passing order under Section 482 Cr.P.C. particularly in terms of Section

205 Cr.P.C. and it is ordinarily for the Magistrate to consider the matter and

the Magistrate must exercise jurisdiction under Section 205 Cr.P.C. in a

fair and judicious manner. In the case in hand, the learned Magistrate has

passed the reasoned order. The discretion of the learned Magistrate

under Section 205 Cr.P.C. cannot be circumscribed by lay down any general

direction. While considering the application under Section 205 Cr.P.C., the

learned Magistrate has to bear in mind the nature of the case as also the

conduct of the person summoned. He shall examine whether any

useful purpose would be served by requiring the personal attendance of the

accused or whether the progress of the trial is likely to be hampered on

account of his absence. Therefore, the satisfaction whether or not an

accused deserves to be exempted from personal attendance has to be of

the learned Magistrate, who is the master of the court in so far as the

progress of the trial is concerned and none else. In spite of no

coercive order passed in favour of the petitioner vide order dated

16.05.2012, the petitioner has not appeared before the learned court

and the matter is still pending. The impugned order is a well reasoned

order and it is well within the discretion of the learned court who

seized with the trial. In that view of the matter, no relief can be extended to

the petitioner.

7. Accordingly, this petition is dismissed.

8. Interim order, if any granted by this Court, stands vacated.

(Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.) Ajay/