The Lucknow Bench of the Allahabad High Court has set aside the lower court’s decision, emphasizing the need for a more thorough consideration of evidence before framing charges against an accused.
A Single Bench of Justice Karunesh Singh Pawar passed this order while hearing an application under section 482 filed by Sadaf Khan.
By means of the application filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C, the applicant has sought quashing of the order dated 14.06.2023 vide which the discharge application moved by the applicant is rejected in Criminal Case under Sections 406, 419, 420 IPC, 66D of the Information Technology Act, Police Station Aliganj, Lucknow.
It is alleged in the prosecution case that according to the FIR/recovery memo, a team of the complainant on 02.08.2021 comprising Sub-Inspector Amit Sahu along with other police constables was doing some work and search regarding a gang, who was involved in running forged call centres and collecting details of innocent people on the pretext of providing them jobs.
On information from A.D.C.P, a team was constituted and raided a call centre, which run in a complex situated in Aliganj and thereafter a recovery memo was prepared on 02.08.2021 at 22:25 and thereafter lodged report under Sections 406, 419, 420 IPC, 66D IT Act, Police Station Aliganj, Lucknow.
A charge-sheet was submitted against the applicant only under Section 420 IPC. However, against the rest of the accused persons, it was submitted under Sections 406, 419, 420 IPC, 66D of the Information Technology Act on 13.09.2022.
Earlier, the applicant has approached the Court by filing Application u/s 482 Cr.P.C, wherein a direction was issued to the applicant to move a discharge application by order dated 17.04.2023 by a coordinate Bench of the Court. Accordingly, a discharge application was filed before the trial court in compliance of the order dated 17.04.2023. Said application has been rejected by order dated 14.06.2023.
Counsel for the applicant submitted that necessary ingredients of cheating as provided under Section 415 IPC are missing. There is lack of intention to cheat at the time of commission of offence, which is an essential ingredient to attract the charge of cheating.
Contents of the FIR clearly indicate that the applicant and other girls were only given jobs of calling the customers from a database provided by the owner of the company, Anuj Kumar Pal. The applicant only used to call customers and enquire if the person was interested in the job and if the answer was in affirmative, he was supposed to ask to fill a form online.
He further submitted that there is no fraudulent transaction of any money. There is no victim in this case, who has come forward. There is no inducement nor any monetary benefit has been accrued to the applicant.
A.G.A, on the other hand, opposes the application and has submitted that the applicant has made false representation, she had prior knowledge that the representation he made was false and the accused made false representation with dishonest intention in order to deceive the person to whom it was made.
“Bare reading of Section 415/420 IPC depicts following ingredients are must to attract the offence of cheating:- (i) deception of any person; (ii) fraudulently or dishonestly inducing that person to deliver any property to any person or to consent that any person shall retain any property; and (iii) intentionally inducing a person to do or omit to do anything which he would not do or omit if he were not so deceived, and the act or omission caused or is likely to cause damage or harm to that person in body, mind, reputation or property.
Perusal of the principles shows that when the material placed before the Court shows grave suspicion against an accused, which has not been properly explained, the Court may be justified in framing the charge and proceeding with the trial. Without there being any grave suspicion, the trial judge shall be empowered to discharge the accused.
Perusal of the aforesaid finding given by the trial court shows that merely on the basis of suspicion, the discharge application has been rejected.
Hence, considering the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Sajjan Singh (supra) and MNG Bharateesh Reddy vs Ramesh Ranganathan & Anr: Criminal Appeal, after due consideration of the submissions advanced, and perusal of the record, I am of the view that the finding recorded by the court below that only on the basis of suspicion the charge can be framed, is erroneous and contrary to the settled law”, the Court observed while allowing the application.
Therefore, the Court set aside the order dated 14.06.2023