1 2025:CGHC:12746 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 962 of 2025 • Arun Tamrakar S/o Late Chandrika Prasad Tamrakar Aged About 60 Years R/o F-19/1, Maroda Sector, Bhilai, Thana Newai, District Durg, Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner versus • State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station Kotwali, Rajnandgaon, District Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent For Petitioner : Mr. Vivek Kumar Agrawal, Advocate For Respondent : Mr. Karan Kumar Behrani, Panel Lawyer Hon’ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma Order on Board 18/03/2025 1. Being aggrieved with the impugned order dated 17.02.2025 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Rajnandgaon in Criminal Case No. 59 of 2024 whereby the learned Revisional Court has affirmed the impugned order dated 12.09.2024 passed by learned Judicial magistrate First Class Rajnandgaon in Criminal VAISHALI LUCKY NAGARIA Digitally signed by VAISHALI LUCKY NAGARIA Date: 2025.04.21 14:00:25 +0530 2 Case No. 279 of 2023. 2. Brief facts of the case, are that FIR bearing Crime No.356/2020 was registered at Police Station Kotwali Rajnandgaon for alleged offences punishable under Sections 406, 409 of IPC against the petitioner. Complainant Naresh Kumar lodged a report alleging that Om Sai Balaji Marketing Pvt. Ltd. (Pratibha Farms and Estates Pvt. Ltd.) ensured several customers to invest their money to purchase plots and it issued bonds when the customers visited the office of the firm office was found to be closed so around 10 to 15 investor went to Hyderabad to meet its director Shri. G. Shreedhar. It is alleged that the director executed a power of attorney in favour of the petitioner enabling him to sell various plots of the company so that money of the investors can be refunded. It is pertinent to mention here that petitioner is one of the investors who had invested his money for purchase of plots and in whose favour bonds were issued. It is further alleged that the petitioner sold the property and did not refund money to the investors. Based on these allegations the FIR was registered. After usual investigation charge sheet No.12/2022 dated 15/01/2022 was filed before the Special Judge under Chhattisgarh Protection of Depositors Interest Act 2005 by adding the offences punishable under section 10 of the Act of 2005. 3. The petitioner filed an application under section 227 of Cr.P.C. and prayed for discharge. The Learned Special Judge vide its order dated 19/01/2023 discharged the petitioner from the 3 offence punishable under section 10 of the Act of 2005 and remitted the matter to the Judicial Magistrate First Class for further proceedings as the offences punishable under sections 406 and 409 of IPC are triable by Judicial Magistrate First Class. The petitioner appeared before the Trial Court and sought discharge on the ground that neither he is agent of the company nor he had received any money from the investors, infact he is also a investor and entitled to receive money derived from selling the property of the company and as such no offence under section 406 and 409 of the IPC can be made out and thus he prayed for discharge. That assailing the impugned order the petitioner preferred a Revision before the Sessions Court. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Learned Sessions Judge has failed to exercise its jurisdiction vested in it by law properly and has committed jurisdictional error while dismissing the revision petition filed by the petitioner herein. He further submits that at the time of framing of charge the Court has to look in to the relevant law and the allegations made in the charge sheet and then consider whether any offence has been committed to frame charge for trial or not. The law casts a duty upon the Trial Court at the stage of framing of charge to use its judicial mind and not to act merely as a post office. At the time of framing of charge, the Court owes a duty to consider whether any offence as alleged by the prosecution is made out or not, the test is not to see whether the trial would lead to conviction for that offence or not but the Court has to satisfy 4 itself that the prima facie case is made out or not. He also submits that the entire materials available on record would show that no charge could have been framed. The learned Court below has committed grave illegality while refusing to discharge the petitioner. He also submits that the perusal of the entire material on record, the charge sheet would show that offence under Section 406 and 409 is made out. He lastly submits that even while refusing the petitioner to discharge, the Learned Trial Court has committed grave illegality. No charge could have been framed against the petitioner and the learned Trial Court has failed to exercise its jurisdiction vested in it by law. The jurisdictional error committed by the Learned Trial Court deserves to be corrected in the interest of justice. 5. Learned counsel for the State submits that impugned order passed by the learned Court below, is proper, legal and strictly in accordance with law and there is no infirmity or illegality in the same. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the final report, charge sheet and other documents annexed to the petition. 7. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, pleadings made in the petition, submissions of counsel for the parties, document/material available on record, further considering the fact that charges have already been framed against the petitioner by the trial Court and the case was fixed for evidence, on perusal of record prime facie case is made out against the 5 petitioner, the order impugned there is neither illegality nor perversity and there is no judicial error committed by the trial Court, hence, instant petition is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 8. This Court clarify that observations made in this order are prima facie and based on charge sheet and not the correctness of the allegations made in the charge-sheet, the trial Court is not to be influenced at all by findings/observations while deciding the case on merits. 9. A copy of this order be sent to the concerned trial Court for necessary compliance and follow up action. Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) JUDGE vaishali