Discharge Plea Rejected | FIR Not an Encyclopaedia and Co-Accused Acquittal Irrelevant in Split-Up Trial | Orissa High Court Affirms Prima Facie Case Against Company Director
Safiya Malik
The High Court of Orissa at Cuttack, Single Bench of Justice Gourishankar Satapathy dismissed a criminal revision petition challenging the refusal of discharge from proceedings under Sections 120B, 420, 468, 471, 34 of the Indian Penal Code read with Sections 4, 5, and 6 of the Prize Chits and Money Circulation Scheme (Banning) Act, 1978. The Court stated that the trial court had rightly found prima facie grounds to proceed against the petitioner.
The case stems from allegations against the petitioner, R. Venkat Ramanan, and others, who were accused of enticing the complainant and other investors to deposit funds into a company named Right Max Techno Trade Company under the pretext of high monthly returns. According to the complainant, the company promised Rs. 1600 per month on an investment of Rs. 10,000 for 33 months. However, upon seeking return of the invested amounts, neither the complainant nor other investors received any funds.
A complaint was subsequently filed in court, leading to a directive under Section 156(3) of CrPC, and the initiation of criminal proceedings under Chamakhandi P.S. Case No. 75 of 2012. A charge sheet was filed against the petitioner and others.
During the trial of G.R. Case No. 225 of 2012, four co-accused were acquitted. As the petitioner and other accused did not appear, their cases were split into G.R. Case No. 225 of 2012(B). When the petitioner later appeared, he sought discharge on the grounds that his name was not mentioned in the FIR and that similarly situated co-accused had been acquitted.
Counsel for the petitioner argued that the petitioner should be discharged since no overt act was attributed to him and the co-accused had been acquitted. It was submitted that the FIR did not name the petitioner and no specific role was alleged against him.
The State, represented by Additional Public Prosecutor R.B. Mishra, contended that the trial court rightly rejected the discharge petition and that a prima facie case was made against the petitioner.
Justice Satapathy considered the rival submissions and examined the impugned order in light of relevant provisions and judicial precedents. Referring to Section 239 CrPC and its corresponding provision under Section 262(2) of the BNSS, the Court stated:
"The Magistrate considers the charge against the accused to be groundless, he shall discharge the accused, and record his reasons for so doing."
The Court held that a discharge petition under the new BNSS scheme must comply with Section 262(1), which requires it to be filed within 60 days from the date of supply of documents under Section 230. However, the revision petitioner failed to disclose when the discharge petition was filed or when documents were supplied, undermining his plea.
On the core argument regarding absence of the petitioner's name in the FIR and acquittal of co-accused, the Court observed: "FIR is neither an encyclopaedia of facts contained therein nor is it a report within the meaning of Section 173 of CrPC/193 of the BNSS."
It further stated: "Acquittal of co-accused persons is on the basis of the evidence led in the trial which is not relevant in the split-up cases like this because the evidence has not been taken in the presence of the accused-petitioner."
The Court stated that the stage of discharge is not the time to appreciate evidence in detail or consider new documents beyond the charge sheet.
Citing the Supreme Court judgment in State of Gujarat vs. Dilipsinh Kishorsinh Rao (2023) 17 SCC 688, the Court quoted: "If there is no sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused necessarily, the accused would be discharged, but if the court is of the opinion... there are grounds for presuming that accused has committed the offence... necessarily charge has to be framed."
On the scope of revisional jurisdiction, the Court remarked: "The revisional court cannot sit as an appellate court and start appreciating the evidence by finding out inconsistency in the statement of witnesses and it is not legally permissible."
It was held that the petitioner being a Director of the accused company and the submission of charge sheet after due investigation indicated prima facie involvement. The Court noted:
"The learned trial Court has taken into consideration the materials available on record by observing inter-alia that the present revision petitioner is one of the Director of the said company and the informant had deposited money in the said company, but did not get back the said amount and the IO on due investigation has submitted charge sheet against the present petitioner and other accused persons.
Upon a thorough examination of the impugned order alongside the principles established by the relevant decisions, the Court found no illegality or perversity in the decision to frame charges and proceed against the accused. Although it has been brought to the Court’s attention that one or two witnesses have already been examined, it would be inappropriate at this juncture to interfere with the impugned order merely because certain co-accused have been acquitted — those acquittals were based on evidence assessed in the original case, not in this split-up proceeding. Therefore, the revision petition lacks merit and stands dismissed.
The order stated: "In the result, the present revision stands dismissed on contest, but there is no order as to costs."
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioner: Ramani K., Advocate
For the Opposite Party: R.B. Mishra, Additional Public Prosecutor
Case Title: R. Venkat Ramanan @ R. Vanket Ramanan vs. State of Odisha
Case Number: CRLREV No. 568 of 2024
Bench: Justice Gourishankar. Satapathy
[Read/Download order]
