Umesh Sakhuja @ Umesh Sakuja And Others vs State Of Jharkhand And Others

Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J

Cr.M.P. No. 298 of 2018 has been filed for quashing the order taking cognizance dated 14.07.2017 and the entire criminal proceeding arising out of complaint case being C1 Case No.2866 of 2015 wherein cognizance has been taken under Sections 420/34 of the Indian Penal Code by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jamshedpur. Cr.M.P. No. 572 of 2017 has been filed for quashing the order taking cognizance dated 12.08.2016 and the entire criminal proceeding arising out of complaint case being C1 Case No.2862 of 2015 wherein cognizance has been taken under Sections 420/34 of the Indian Penal Code by Chief Judicial Magistrate., Jamshedpur.

Both the cases arise out of the different cases but the petitioners are the same and involve substantially the same questions of law and therefore, are being heard together and will be disposed of by this common order.

Accused No.1 is Travel Agent and accused nos.2 and 3 are petitioner nos.1 and 2. The complainants had booked tour package for Mansarovar Yatra for the year 2013-14 for a sum of Rs.75,000/- and Rs.81,000/- each and had paid the same, but on one pretext or other, the tour package was cancelled and neither they were taken for the tour nor the amount taken was refunded.

The allegation against these petitioners who are accused nos.2 and 3 is that, they were representatives of the Complainant and had promised the complainant that they will approach accused no.1 and negotiate with same with regard to the failed tour package.

It is submitted by learned counsel on behalf of petitioners that they have no concern with accused no.1. They have been dragged into the case only on the basis of averments made in the complaint petition that they had offered their good offices to negotiate with the accused no.1 for the aborted tour programme. There is no whisper in the complaint petition that these petitioners were the agent of travel agency, however, in the statement of the complainant recorded in solemn affirmation, they have developed contradictory version that they were agents of the said Company. On these materials, it is submitted that even if the entire allegations as made in the complaint petitions are assumed to be true, no prima facie offence will be made out under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code as there is no allegation of deception or inducement made against these petitioners.

Learned A.P.P. assisted by learned counsel on behalf of complainant opposed the quashing petition. It is submitted that neither money has been returned by the travel agency nor passport. Their complicity has also come in the enquiry in the statement of witnesses.

After having considered the submission advanced on behalf of both sides that this Court is of the view that in absence of any specific averment regarding the inducement against these petitioners, mere cancellation of the tour package will not be sufficient to implead the petitioners in the present case. Petitioners are not stated have induced the Complainant to enter into tour package with the Accused no.1 and only after the said tour did not materialize they are said to have negotiated with Accused No.1. These materials even if accepted will not make out an offence under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code.

I do not find that any criminality is made out on the basis of averments made.

Under the circumstance, the impugned order as well as the entire criminal proceeding, is quashed.

Criminal Miscellaneous Petitions are allowed.