Court orders trial proceedings against two in cheating case

A Delhi court has set aside an order passed by a magistrate discharging two men of the charges of cheating and criminal breach of trust, terming it as illegal and directed the trial court to proceed further with the case.
Additional Sessions Judge Dig Vinay Singh said that accused Lalit Kumar Dev and Gagan Makhija appear to have prima facie committed the offence under section 420 (cheating) and 406 (criminal breach of trust) of IPC, therefore, the magistrate was not justified in discharging them.
The "magistrate was not justified in discharging the accused observing that no offence was committed or that sanction was required. The order of the magistrate being illegal has to be set aside and is set aside," the judge said.

The court, while disposing of the revision petition, asked the accused to appear before the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (CMM) on December 18 and directed the CMM to proceed further with the trial in accordance with the law.
The order came on a revision petition filed by Delhi Police against the trial court order discharging the accused of the charges of cheating and criminal breach of trust.
The trial court, while discharging the duo, had observed that the probe agency has not obtained prior sanction under section 121 of Delhi Cooperative Societies Act, 2003.

Apart from Dev and Makhija, the police have also named Sunil Bhatia as accused in the case but he was declared proclaimed offender.

According to the prosecution, all the accused dishonestly and fraudulently induced people in becoming members of a society by depositing Rs 3100, and a sum of Rs 2000 was separately taken by them inducing the people to secure loans of Rs 50,000 each.
A complaint was lodged against the three accused by one Raj Kumar Deepak who was a victim of the fraud after he found out that though people have deposited money in the account of the society, the entire amount was withdrawn leaving a balance of only Rs 30.
The sessions court, in its order, said since the charge sheet in the case was filed for offences under IPC and not for any offence under Delhi Cooperative Societies Act, no sanction was required to launch prosecution against the accused.

The "magistrate committed serious error in law in observing that sanction under sanction of 121 of the Delhi Cooperative Societies Act, 2003 was required in the present matter," the court said.