Case Note & Summary
The State of Maharashtra filed a criminal application under Section 482 CrPC challenging the order of the Sessions Judge, Latur, in Criminal Revision Application No.123/2009, whereby the respondents (original accused nos. 2 to 4) were discharged in RCC No.566/2006. The case arose from a complaint by one Smt. Shila @ Asawari Arun Kshirsagar, who alleged that the accused persons induced her to part with money on the false promise of sending her son to Canada for a job. The police investigated and filed a charge-sheet under Sections 420, 406 read with 34 IPC. The trial court took cognizance and issued process. The accused filed a revision before the Sessions Court, which allowed the revision and discharged them, holding that no prima facie case was made out. The State, being aggrieved, filed the present application. The High Court examined the material on record, including the complaint and the charge-sheet, and found that there was sufficient material to show that the accused had made false promises and misappropriated the money. The court held that the Sessions Judge had exceeded his revisional jurisdiction by substituting his own view for that of the trial court without finding any perversity. The High Court set aside the order of discharge and restored the proceedings before the trial court, directing the trial court to proceed with the case in accordance with law. The court emphasized that at the stage of framing of charge, only a prima facie case is required, and the trial court had correctly found that such a case existed.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure Code - Discharge under Section 239 CrPC - Prima Facie Case - The Sessions Judge erred in discharging the accused by holding that no prima facie case was made out, ignoring the material on record which showed that the accused had induced the complainant to part with money on false promise of providing a job abroad. Held that the trial court's order taking cognizance was based on sufficient material and the revision court could not substitute its view without finding perversity. (Paras 2-5) B) Indian Penal Code - Cheating under Section 420 IPC - Ingredients - The complainant alleged that the accused promised to send her son to Canada for a job and took money, but failed to do so. The material showed that the accused had no intention to fulfill the promise from the beginning, constituting cheating. Held that a prima facie case under Section 420 IPC was made out. (Paras 3-5) C) Indian Penal Code - Criminal Breach of Trust under Section 406 IPC - Entrustment - The complainant entrusted money to the accused for the specific purpose of securing a job abroad, which the accused misappropriated. Held that the ingredients of criminal breach of trust were prima facie satisfied. (Paras 3-5)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Sessions Judge was justified in discharging the accused under Section 239 CrPC when a prima facie case under Sections 420 and 406 IPC was made out against them.
Final Decision
The High Court allowed the application, set aside the order of the Sessions Judge dated 19th September 2011 in Criminal Revision Application No.123/2009, and restored the proceedings in RCC No.566/2006 to the file of the trial court. The trial court was directed to proceed with the case in accordance with law.
Law Points
- Discharge under Section 239 CrPC requires no prima facie case
- Prima facie case for Sections 420 and 406 IPC established
- Revision court cannot substitute trial court's view without perversity
