Facts of the case
There was an agreement between the appellant and the contesting respondents ,where under the said respondents agreed to sell a plot of land admeasuring 400 sq. yards to the appellant herein for an amount of Rs.44,00,000/-.
As per the agreement, the appellant made some payment.
On 11.7.2009, the appellant complained to the police that the father of the contesting respondents had called the appellant on telephone and asked the appellant to make the payment of the balance amount to the first respondent .
Accordingly, the first respondent approached the appellant. Both of them went to the bank in a car belonging to the first respondent wherein the appellant withdrew an amount of Rs.16,68,000/-. Both of them proceeded to the house of the father of the respondents.
When they were about to enter the house, the first respondent insisted that the appellant leave the money in the car itself. The appellant left the money in the car and went into the house of the respondents.
While the appellant and the father of the respondents were discussing, the first respondent went out of the house and returned after a while to inform the appellant that the glass of the vehicle, in which money was kept, was broken and the money was stolen.
The appellant lodged a complaint with the police praying that action be taken against the respondents.
The police investigated the case and filed a charge sheet under Section 406 and 420 IPC.
The trial Court summoned the respondents.
The respondents approached the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. praying that the criminal proceedings be quashed.
The said application allowed by the High Court and hence the instant appeal.
The arguments made before the High Court were that the offences under Section 406 and 420 IPC are not made out on the facts alleged in the FIR.
The High Court opined that there was no entrustment of the money in the instant case and at best it was a case of theft falling under Section 379 IPC.
Judgment
The Hon’ble Supreme Court in its ruling criticized the Trial Court and gave it the appropriate directions to follow.
The Supreme Court stated that, “Whether the respondents are guilty under Section 379 IPC or not is a matter of evidence. The fact that the police chose to file a charge sheet under Section 406 and 420 IPC is not conclusive regarding the offences for which the respondents-accused are to be tried. The trial Court can always frame an appropriate charge if there is sufficient material from the report of the police available before it. In case where the material is insufficient to frame a charge, the trial Court may either discharge the accused or may direct further investigation in the matter. Before deciding as to which one of the three courses of action mentioned above is to be resorted to, the trial Court must examine the content of the complaint, the evidence gathered by the investigating agency and also scrutinize whether the investigating agency proceeded in the right direction.”
The appeal was allowed and the impugned order has been set aside.
BY: ANKIT RAJPUT
A COMPREHENSIVE WEBSITE FOR ALL LEGAL DEVELOPMENTS