1 2025:CGHC:914 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 1300 of 2018 1. Kumar Abhishek @ Suresh Murli S/o Shri Bajrangilal Shrivastava R/o Flat No. 601 R N Enclave, Kanti Factory Road, Gandhi Nagar, Kankadbagh, Patna (Bihar). Current Address C - 402, Hardev Apartment, Hanuman Nagar, Kankadbagh, Ps Patrakar Nagar, Patna (Bihar)., District : Patna, Bihar 2. Meenakshi Shrivastava @ Vibha Jha @ Sangeeta Sharma D/o Mohar Singh W/o Kumar Abhishek R/o Flat No. 601 R N Enclave, Kanti Factory Road, Gandhi Nagar, Kankadbagh, Patna (Bihar). Current Address C - 402, Hardev Apartment, Hanuman Nagar, Kankadbagh, Ps Patrakar Nagar, Patna (Bihar) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through The District Magistrate, Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2. Pramod Sharma S/o Shri Girdharilal Sharma, Advertisement Manager, Dainik Bhaskar, Rajbandha Maidan, Raipur Chhattisgarh. 3. Utkarsh Mohan Kulshreshtha S/o Late R M Kulshreshtha, R/o Qtr. 22- A, Krishna Vihar, Karni Palace Road, Vaishali Nagar, Jaipur (Rajasthan). 4. Mubarak Ansari, S/o Bhatu Miya R/o Ps Malkoko, District Barhi, Hazaribag, (Jharkhand). ….Respondent(s) KUNAL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by KUNAL DEWANGAN 2 For Petitioners : Mr. N. Naha Roy, Advocate. For Respondent No.1/State : Mr. Amit Verma, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 07/01/2025 1. Heard Mr. N. Naha Roy, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. Amit Verma, learned Panel Lawyer, appearing for the respondent No. 1/State. 2. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking following prayer:- “It is therefore humbly and respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to exercise its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and issue necessary direction for impleading the respondent Nos. 2 to 4 herein as accused persons in the course of trial pending before the learned Special Judge (Electricity Act) and First Additional Sessions Judge, Raipur (C.G.) in criminal case No. 348/2011, in the larger interest of justice.” 3. Prosecution case in brief is that on 23.09.2013, one Arvind Kumar lodged a complaint before the Police Station: Civil Lines, District- Raipur (C.G.) stating therein that he was convinced over telephone by one Kumari Sangeeta for ensuring government job 3 and against such promise made him to deposit Rs. 1,35,000/- in a bank account of Mubarak Ansari, resident of Hazaribag (Jharkhand). Subsequently he was issued a forged appointment letter and thereby the offence was committed. During the course of trial, certain material witnesses including the complainant have been examined before the trial Court who have not deposed anything against the present applicants. However, the witnesses have firmly and clearly stated that the police did not bother to hold the investigation in its proper way and collect evidence which it ought to have collected in order to detect the real mastermind of the crime alleged. 4. In the aforesaid backdrop of the case and particularly in view of the fact that the beneficiary of the amount deposited by the complainant and other persons similarly despite having no explanation of the same has not been made accused in the case, the applicants moved an application under section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 seeking impleadment of the respondent Nos. 2 to 4 herein in the trial as accused persons. Though the statements of the complainant and other prosecution witnesses were sufficient to bring the fact of involvement of so many other persons having played serious roles in the commission of the offence. Learned court below hardly bothered to refer the same with due caution and proceeded to reject the application of the applicants in a most arbitrary and illegal manner 4 ignoring the very mandate of the Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the impugned order passed by learned trial Court being absolutely arbitrary and contrary to mandate of the provisions contained in Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 is not sustainable in the eyes of law. The order impugned observing that as per charge- sheet, the applicants are the only persons alleged to have committed the offence and thus there is no need to implead any other person as an accused in the present case being perverse and contrary to the mandate of the Hon'ble Supreme Court as also the provision of Section 319 of the CrPC is not sustainable in the eyes of law. He further submits that the order impugned herein rejecting the application of the applicants under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, despite there being clear and firm statements of the prosecution witnesses i.e. the complainant and Mubarak Ansari, in whose bank account the amount was deposited, is absolutely arbitrary and contrary to law. The order impugned herein rejecting the application of the applicants under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, is bad in law also for the reason of there being no sound reason not to hold a prosecution against the respondent Nos. 2 to 4 herein together with the present applicants, in view of there being a clear appearance of evidence in the course of trial, i.e. the statements recorded by the prosecution witnesses in their cross-examination 5 as per requirement as mandate by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. As such, the petition deserves to be allowed and the impugned order deserves to be quashed. 6. Per contra, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State, would support the impugned order and submit that the impugned order passed by the Judicial Magistrate in a judicial capacity and the same is well reasoned order based on the findings and reasoning mentioned therein, therefore, the respondent/State is unable to comment upon a judicial order. Thus, there is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned order passed by the trial Court. He further submits that learned trial Court has made certain issues in the case. The learned trial Court after perusing and examining the evidence, statements and exhibited documents which are material on record produced before him, has rejected the application filed by the petitioners under Section 319 of the CrPC. As such, the petition deserves to be dismissed. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions made hereinabove and also perused the documents annexed with petition. 8. From perusal of the records, it appears that the accused persons have committed fraud by creating fake documents, opening bank accounts, publishing advertisements, and filling out online forms. The Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) at Delhi has also registered a crime and filed a charge-sheet against the 6 accused/petitioners. The CBI has made respondent Nos. 2 to 4 as witnesses, and according to Utkarsh Mohan's statement, accused Minakshi Shrivastava sent an email in the name of Vibha Jha. The accused persons allegedly used fake voter ID cards to open bank accounts, published fake advertisements and sent emails. The investigation reveals that the accused persons namely Minakshi Shrivastava and others, committed fraud and used fake documents. Considering the material available on record, the learned trial Court has rejected the application of the petitioners filed under Section 319 of the CrPC, for summoning the respondent Nos. 2 to 4 as accused. In the present case as there appears to be no evidence against them. Thus, the trial Court has not committed any illegality or irregularity in rejecting the application filed by the petitioners. 9. Accordingly, the petition being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. Interim order, if any, granted earlier stands vacated. The trial Court is directed to expedite the trial and conclude the same expeditiously. 10. Office is directed to send a copy of this order to the concerned trial Court forthwith for necessary information and follow up action. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) CHIEF JUSTICE Kunal