10 July 2025 Criminal Revision >> Criminal Law  

The High Court has dismissed a criminal revision petition challenging an order dated February 10, 2025, from the 19th Additional Sessions Judge, Indore. The challenged order had framed charges under Sections 409 (criminal breach of trust by an agent) read with 34, and 420 (cheating) read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) against the petitioner/accused, Yatindra Randhar, in a case stemming from Crime No. 07/2023.

Background of the Case:

The case originated from a complaint filed by Dharmendra Singh Rathore, leading to the registration of Crime No. 07/2023 on January 8, 2023, at PS Palasia, Indore. The initial offenses registered were under Sections 420 & 409 IPC, and Section 6 of the Madhya Pradesh Nikshepako Ke Hiton Ka Sanrakshan Adhiniyam, 2000, against Yatindra Randhar, Sachin Gyaneshwar Dahake, and others.

Following an investigation, a final report was submitted, and the case was committed to the Sessions Court. The impugned order subsequently framed charges specifically against the petitioner under Sections 409 and 420 IPC, both read with Section 34 (common intention).

Petitioner's Challenge to Charges:

Yatindra Randhar challenged the framing of these charges primarily on the grounds that:

• There were no direct financial transactions between him and the complainants, and no funds were deposited directly into his personal accounts.
• The only alleged transaction linking him was from Ravi Solanki, which was later transferred to a company account, suggesting no personal misappropriation.
• He claimed to be a victim himself, having invested a substantial amount (approximately ?20 lakhs) in the companies involved, Comsys Infotech and Globe 2 Trade.
• He asserted that he had no role in managing the financial affairs of these companies, which were allegedly owned and managed by co-accused Sachin Gyaneshwar Dahake.
• He maintained that he was merely an investor and not a beneficiary, and there was no evidence of him withdrawing funds or profiting from the schemes.
• He had cooperated with the investigation, voluntarily providing financial records.
• He argued that the charges under Sections 420 and 409 IPC require active fraudulent intent and criminal breach of trust, which he lacked, as he neither held a managerial position nor induced complainants to invest. He also contended that Section 409 IPC was inapplicable to him as there was no entrustment of property.

Court's Analysis and Dismissal:

The High Court, in its examination, reiterated the limited scope of review at the stage of charge framing. The Court's duty is to ascertain whether the ingredients of the alleged offenses are present in the material before it, without delving into contradictions in witness statements or the sufficiency/truthfulness of the evidence. The Court emphasized that it only needs to determine if there is a ground for presuming that the accused committed an offense, not to reach a definitive conclusion.

The Court noted that while the final report mentioned charges under Sections 420 and 406 IPC against the petitioner, the trial court was competent to frame charges under Section 409 IPC even if not explicitly mentioned in the charge sheet, citing Dinesh Tiwari vs. State of UP.

Crucially, the Court referred to the original complaint filed by Dharmendra Singh Rathore, which stated that Yatindra Randhar was a "member of the core committee" and introduced himself as a "Director of the Indore office" of Comsys Infotech and Globe 2 Trade. It also highlighted statements from other complainants, Santosh Jaiswal and Ravi Solanki, who corroborated that Yatindra Randhar was instrumental in inducing them to invest money with promises of high profits.

The Court then analyzed Section 409 IPC, emphasizing that it applies to an "agent," and an agency contract can be oral. Given that the complaints and witness statements indicated Yatindra Randhar presented himself as an office bearer of the companies, the Court concluded that he falls within the definition of an "agent" for the purpose of this section.

The Court explicitly stated that the fact that the petitioner also claimed to have suffered a loss does not absolve him of criminal liability. It found that the material collected by the investigation met the "test of grave suspicion" required for framing charges. The contentions raised by the petitioner were deemed matters of defense, not grounds for discharge at this preliminary stage.

Consequently, finding the criminal revision devoid of merit, the High Court dismissed the petition, thereby upholding the charges framed by the trial court.

Indian Penal Code, 1860