Anil Dudha Bhai Kaneria And Ors vs State Of Rajasthan And Anr on 17 May, 2017

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT
JAIPUR

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 1910 / 2016
1. Anil Dudha Bhai Kaneria S/o Shri Dudha Bhai
Kaneria Director of M/s. Kaneria Grenita Ltd. Survey
No. 3, Dahej Badadla Port Road Badadla Bagra District
Bharuch (Gujarat).
2. Smt. Sheetal Kaneria W/o Anil Dudha Bhai Kaneria
R/o Survey No. 3, Dahej Badadla Port Road Badadla
Bagra District Bharuch (Gujarat).
3. Shri Sanjay Makawana S/o Shri Dhiraj Lal Ji
Makwana Purchase Manager of M/s. Kaneria Grenita
Ltd. Survey No. 3, Dahej Badadla Port Road Badadla
Bagra District Bharuch (Gujarat).

—-Petitioners/Accused
Versus
1. The State of Rajasthan through Public Prosecutor.
2. Subhash Sharma S/o Shri Hemraj Sharma by caste
Brahamin R/o. Plot No. 24, Kartikey Nagar,
Narsinghpura, Ajmer Road, Beawar, Police Station
Beawar City, District Ajmer (Rajasthan).

—-Respondents

__

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rajesh Mootha
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Anshudhar Singh
Public Prosecutor : Mr. NS Dhakad
__
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE BANWARI LAL SHARMA
Order
REPORTABLE

17/05/2017

Petitoner/accused Anil Dudha Bhai Kaneria,

Smt. Sheetal Kaneria and Sanjay Makawana preferred
(2 of 23)
[CRLMP-1910/2016]

this Misc. Petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing

impugned FIR No. 863/2015 registered at Police Station

Beawar City, Beawar, District Ajmer for offences

punishable under Sections 420, 406, 504, 120B IPC.

Brief facts of the case are that respondent no.

2/complainant submitted a criminal complaint on

02.09.2015 before Learned Additional Chief Judicial

Magistrate, Beawar being complaint no. 449/2015 against

the present petitioners stating therein :-

” 1- ;g gS fd izkFkhZ ifjoknh ceqdke C;koj esa eSllZ
Jh ca’kh feujYl ds uke ls [kfut ikÅMj dk dkjksckj djrk gS

rFkk vizkFkhZ eqfYte Jh vfuy dusfj;k eSllZ dusfj;k xzsfuVks

fyfeVsM ds uke ls O;kikj djrk gS ,oa esjh QeZ eSllZ ca’kh

feujYl C;koj fLFkr fofHkUu [kfut m|ksxksa ls eky ysdj VsªfMax

dk dk;Z djrk gSA izkFkhZ dh QeZ ij le; le; ij fofHkUu

dEifu;ksa ls [kfut ikÅMj dk vkns’k feyrk jgrk gSA rnuqlkj

[kfut ik+ÅMj dh VsªfMax dk dk;Z djrk gSA blh dze esa fiNys

56 lkyks ls vizkFkhZ dh QeZ eSllZ dusfj;k xzsfuVk fyfeVsM ls

mlds vkns’kkuqlkj eky dh lIykbZ dk dk;Z fd;k gS tks vkns’k

vizkFkhZ eqfYte Loa; ds }kjk ,oa viuh ifRu Jherh ‘khry ,oa vius

izfrfuf/k Jh lat; edoku ds }kjk le; le; ij ifjoknh dks
(3 of 23)
[CRLMP-1910/2016]

C;koj vkdj fn, tkrs gS o izkFkhZ dks foÜokl ,oa Hkjkslk fnyk;k

x;k dh izkFkhZ ds }kjk Hksts x;s [kfut ikÅMj dk Hkqxrku 60

fnol dh vof/k ds vanj fcy ls fcy ds pSd vFkok uxn Hkqxrku

vizkFkhZx.k djrs jgsaxs ,oa mlesa pqd gksus ij izkFkhZ cdk;k jkf’k e;

r;’kqnk 13 izfr’kr C;kt ls izkIr djus dk vf/kdkjh gksxkA bl

izdkj vizkFkhZx.k us bUgha ‘krkZs ij izkFkhZ ls m/kkj eky ys ysus ds

fy, vRizsfjr fd;k ftl ij izkFkhZ us foÜokl esa vkdj eky HkstkA

2- ;g fd izkFkhZ us vfHk;qDrx.k ds ;gkW mlds vkns’kkuqlkj le;

le; ij tfj;s VªkaliksVZ dEiuh nqxzsÜojh ykstsfLVd ds le; le;

ij feujYl ikÅMj fHktokrk jgk gS tks lqjf{kr :i ls vfHk;qDr

dks izkIr gksrk jgk gSA ftlesa le; le; ij vkaf’kd Hkqxrku

vizkFkhZ ds }kjk izkFkhZ ifjokn dks fd;k tkrk jgk gSA vfHk;qDr dk

izkFkhZ QeZ esa vkt rd dqy 53]38]854@ :i;s v{kjs rjsiu yk[k

vMrhl gtkj vkB lkS pkSou :i;s cdk;k py jgs gS nqxzsÜojh

ykstsfLVd dEiuh ds ns; fdjk;s dh jkf’k rknknh :i;s 9]14]296

cdk;k pys vk jgs gS bl izdkj izkFkhZ ifjoknh ds vizkFkhZ eqfYte esa

rknknh :i;s 62]53]152@ ysus cdk;k pys vk jgs gS ftldk

Hkqxrku r;’kqnk ‘krksZ ds vuqlkj ugha fd;k x;kA ‘kq: ls gh

vfHk;qDr dk csbZekuh ,oa /kks[kk?kMh dk vk’k; utj vkus yxk fdUrq

izkFkhZ }kjk Hkqxrku ckj ckj dgus ij vizkFkhZ }kjk izkFkhZ dks vkaf’kd
(4 of 23)
[CRLMP-1910/2016]

Hkqxrku irs dqN pSd tkjh fd;s x;s tks fd vizkFkhZ ds dgs vuqlkj

lcaf/kr cSad esa ns; frfFk;ksa u muds iÜpkr~ izLrqr fd;s x;s fdUrq

dqN pSdl Hkh vuknfjr gks x;sA vizkFkhZx.k }kjk izkFkhZ dks cSad

xkjaVh dh ,ylh Hkh le; le; ij nh xbZ fdUrq ,ylh esa n’kkZbZ

xbZ jkf’k;ksa dk Hkqxrku Hkh vizkFkhZ }kjk /kks[kk/kM+hiwoZd :dok fn;k

x;kA izkFkhZ }kjk vizkFkhZ esa Hkqxrku cdk;k gksus ds dkj.k ncko esa

vk x;k o vfHk;qDrx.k ds foÜokl esa vkdj feujy ikÅMj mlds

vkns’kkuqlkj Hkstrk jgkA bl izdkj us djkj ds ‘krksZ dks Hkax dj

csbZekuh dk vk’k; j[krs gq, izkFkhZ dh cdk;k jkf’k dks jksd dj

jkf’k dks vius dke ys yhA bl izdkj fd oS/k lafonk dk vfrdze.k

djds ml jkf’k dk mi;ksx o O;;u fd;k dks tkucqdj jkf’k

nqfoZfu;ksx djuk n’kkZRkk gS tks Hkkjrh; n.M lafgrk ds rgr ,d

vijk/k gS rFkk mDr d`R; tks ,d O;kikjh }kjk fd;k x;k gS ftlls

izkFkhZ dks O;kikj esa vlguh; {kfr gks jgh FkhA ijUrq Hkqxrku vVd

tkus ds dkj.k izkFkhZ dks foÜokl ugha gksrs gq, Hkh foÜokl djuk

iM+k rFkk vizkFkhZx.k ds dgs vuqlkj feujy ikÅMj fHktokuk iM+k

vkSj dke djuk iMkA bl izdkj izkFkhZ ls vfHk;qDrx.k us fofHkUu

fcyksa ds tfj;s feujy ikÅMj rRdkyhu dher ds vuqlkj m/kkj

eky [kjhn fd;k mldk Hkqxrku ‘krksZ ds vuqlkj vnk ugha fd;kA

bl izdkj jkf’k dqy 62]53]152@ :i;s feujy ikÅMj dh jde
(5 of 23)
[CRLMP-1910/2016]

cdk;k fudyrh Fkh rFkk ml ij ns; C;kt dh jkf’k ysuh cdk;k

pyh vk jgh gS tks vkt fnol rd cdk;k pyh vk jgh gSA

vfHk;qDrx.k ds fu;r [kjkc gks xbZ gSA izkFkhZ dh jde ftldk

izkFkhZ gdnkj gS mDr jde dks gMi djus ij vkenk gS rFkk jde

jksd dj vius dke ys jgk gSA

3- ;g gS fd izkFkhZ us vfHk;qDrx.k ds ;gk vkMZj ds vuqlkj le;

le; ij tfj;s nqxsZÜojh ykstsfLVd C;koj ds tfj;s le; le; ij

feujy ikÅMj vizkFkhZ ds vkns’kkuqlkj fHktokrk jgk gS tks

lqjf{kr :i ls vfHk;qDr dks izkIr gksrk jgk gSa

4- ;g fd izkFkhZ }kjk fHktok;k x;k eky le; le; ij vfHk;qDr

us lqjf{kr :i ls izkIr dj fy;k gS ,oa eky ds ckjs esa dHkh dksbZ

f’kdk;r izkFkhZ dks ugha dh vkSj izkFkhZ dks vfHk;qDr us iw.kZ Hkjkslk ,oa

foÜokl fnyk;k fd mDr feujYl ikÅMj dh jde dk Hkqxrku

tYn gh vkidks fHktok fn;k tk,xkA izkFkhZ dks ges’kkk Hkqxrku gsrq

cqyk;k tkrk vkSj ?kaVks cSBk;k j[kdj vizkFkhZ }kjk wBk kalk nsdj

fcuk Hkqxrku fd;s okfil fHktok fn;k tkrkA izkFkhZ vius lg;ksxh

Jh izoh.k ‘kekZ ds lkFk vfHk;qDrx.k ds vkWfQl esa cdk;k jde dh

ekax dh rks vfHk;qDr us vkukdkuh djrs gq, xkyh xyksp djus ij

vkeknk gks x;s ,oa ogk ls Hkkx tkus dk dgus yxs ugha rks tku ls

ekjus dh nhA bl ij lEcfU/kr Fkkus ij fjiksVZ djus gsrq izkFkhZ x;k
(6 of 23)
[CRLMP-1910/2016]

fdUrq iqfyl us ekeyk ntZ djus ls euk dj fn;k vkSj vizkFkhZ dh

Å¡ph jktuSfrd igqp ds dkj.k grk’k o tku cpkdj okfil C;koj

vkuk iM+kA

5- ;g fd vfHk;qDr us iwoZ fu;ksftr vkijkf/kd “kM~;U ,oa lkft’k

j[krs gq, izkFkhZ ls yk[kks :i;s dk feujYl ikÅMj m/kkj [kjhn dj

/kks[kk/kM+h iwoZd ,oa cbZekuh vk’k; ls mDr feujy ikÅMj dh

cdk;k jde ftldks izkIr djus dk vf/kdkj dsoy izkFkhZ dks gh Fkh

ftlls og vius O;kikj ,oa [kpZ ds dke ys ldrk gS tks fd tks

fd vfHk;qDr dk mijksDr d`R; naMuh; vijk/k dh Js.kh esa vkrk gSA

6- ;g fd eqfYte dk mijksDr d`R; Hkkjrh; n.M lafgrk dh /kkjk

420] 406] 504 ,oa /kkjk 120 ¼ch½ ds rgr n.Muh; vijk/k dh Js.kh

esa vkrk gSA

7- ;g fd izkFkhZ iqfyl Fkkuk C;koj flVh esa fjiksVZ djus x;k fdUrq

iqfyl }kjk izkFkhZ dh fjiksVZ ij dksbZ dk;Zokgh ugha fd;s tkus ds

dkj.k izkFkhZ ds }kjk iqfyl v/kh{kd egksn;] vtesj ds ;gkW O;fDr’k

% mifLFkr gksdj fjiksVZ izLrqr dh fdUrq dksbZ Hkh dk;Zokgh ugha gksus

ls ekuu;h U;k;ky; ds le{k ifjokn izLrqr djus dh vko’;drk

mRiUu gqbZ gSaA vr% Jheku ls izkFkZuk gS fd ifjoknh }kjk izLrqr

ifjokn i dks ntZ fd;k tkdj varxZr /kkjk 156 ¼3½ n.M izfdz;k
(7 of 23)
[CRLMP-1910/2016]

lafgrk ds rgr iqfyl Fkkuk C;koj flVh dks fHktok;k tkdj

Fkkukf/kdkjh egksn; dks eqfYte ds fo:} eqdnek ntZ dj l[r ls

l[r dkuwuh dk;Zokgh fd;s tkus ckcr~ vknsf’kr fd;k tkosa o

ifjoknh dks U;k; fnyk;k tkosaA¬ ”

The said complaint was sent under Section

156(3) Cr.P.C. for investigation to SHO, Police Station

Beawar City, Beawar, District Ajmer where impugned FIR

No. 863/2015 under Sections 420, 406, 504, 120B IPC

was registered and investigation commenced. Matter is

still under investigation.

Learned Counsel for petitioners Mr. Rajesh

Mootha submits that from the bare perusal of FIR, it

reveals that, the dispute between parties is exclusively of

civil nature regarding business transactions. He submits

that trading of mineral powder is going on between

parties since last 5-6 years and part payment is being

given by the petitioners/accused to complainant,

therefore the ingredients of cheating enshrined in Section

415 IPC are missing in this matter, therefore there is no

ground for offence under Section 420 IPC. So far as

Section 406 IPC is concerned, there should be

entrustment but not a single allegation is their in FIR
(8 of 23)
[CRLMP-1910/2016]

where respondent no. 2/complainant alleged that accused

was entrusted with property or any goods or amount to

petitioner which has been alienated. Further Section 504

IPC is concerned, he submits that petitioners are residing

at Badadla Bagra, District Bharuch (Gujarat) when did

respondent no. 2/complainant visited their he did not

mention any date or time. Regarding the offence under

Section 504 IPC, not only this the words for alleged

insulting has not also been mentioned in the FIR,

therefore there is no ground for registering FIR or

continuing investigation for offence under Section 504

IPC also. Since the ingredients of main offences are

missing, therefore offence under Section 120B IPC is also

not a ground for continuing investigation. He submits that

since no offence is disclosed from the FIR, therefore

impugned FIR may be quashed and set aside.

Learned Counsel relied on Binod Kumar and

Others Vs State of Bihar and Another reported in

(2014) 10 SCC 663, International Advanced

Research Centre for Powder Metallurgy and new

materials (ARCI) and others Vs Nimra Cerglass

Technics Private Limited and Another reported in

(2016) 1 SCC 348.

(9 of 23)
[CRLMP-1910/2016]

Per Contra Mr. Anshudhar Singh Learned

Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent no.

2/complainant submitted that the intention of petitioners

was to deceit complainant from the very inception,

therefore offence under Section 420 IPC and since there

are serious allegations regarding insulting, therefore

ingredients of Section 504 and 120B IPC are also there in

FIR. He further submits that powers vested in this Court

under Section 482 Cr.P.C. should be exercised sparingly.

He submits that from the perusal of FIR, it cannot be said

that no cognizable offence is disclosed, therefore the

Misc. Petition may be dismissed.

Learned Counsel relied on Taramani Parakh

Vs State of Madhya Pradesh and Others reported in

(2015) 11 SCC 260 and Ashfaq Ahmed Quereshi

Anr. Vs Namrata Chopra Ors. reported in 2014 I AD

(S.C.) 21, Criminal Appeal No. 2100/2013 decided by

Hon’ble Supreme Court on 17.12.2013.

Learned PP Mr. NS Dhakad supported the

submissions made by Learned Counsel for complainant

and submits that this Misc. Petition may be dismissed.

I have considered the submissions made at bar.

(10 of 23)
[CRLMP-1910/2016]

In the matter of Binod Kumar and Others Vs

State of Bihar and Another, Hon’ble Supreme Court

observed that :-

” 17. Section 420 IPC deals with cheating.

The essential ingredients of Section 420

IPC are:-

(i) cheating;

(ii) dishonest inducement to deliver

property or to make, alter or destroy any

valuable security or anything which is

sealed or signed or is capable of being

converted into a valuable security, and

(iii) mens rea of the accused at the

time of making the inducement.

18. In the present case, looking at the

allegations in the complaint on the face of

it, we find that no allegations are made

attracting the ingredients of Section 405

IPC. Likewise, there are no allegations as

to cheating or the dishonest intention of

the appellants in retaining the money in

order to have wrongful gain to themselves

or causing wrongful loss to the
(11 of 23)
[CRLMP-1910/2016]

complainant. Excepting the bald

allegations that the appellants did not

make payment to the second respondent

and that the appellants utilized the

amounts either by themselves or for some

other work, there is no iota of allegation

as to the dishonest intention in

misappropriating the property. To make

out a case of criminal breach of trust, it is

not sufficient to show that money has

been retained by the appellants. It must

also be shown that the appellants

dishonestly disposed of the same in some

way or dishonestly retained the same. The

mere fact that the appellants did not pay

the money to the complainant does not

amount to criminal breach of trust.

19. Even if all the allegations in the

complaint taken at the face value are true,

in our view, the basic essential ingredients

of dishonest misappropriation and

cheating are missing. Criminal proceedings

are not a short cut for other remedies.

(12 of 23)
[CRLMP-1910/2016]

Since no case of criminal breach of trust or

dishonest intention of inducement is made

out and the essential ingredients of

Sections 405/420 IPC are missing, the

prosecution of the appellants under

Sections 406/120B IPC, is liable to be

quashed.”

In the matter of International Advanced

Research Centre for Powder Metallurgy and new

materials (ARCI) and others Vs Nimra Cerglass

Technics Private Limited and Another, Hon’ble

Supreme Court observed that :-

” 14. In the light of the well-settled

principles, it is to be seen whether the

allegations in the complaint filed against

ARCI and its officers for the alleged failure

to develop extruded ceramic honeycomb

as per specifications disclose offences

punishable under Sections 419 and 420

IPC. It is to be seen that whether the

averments in the complaint make out a

case to constitute an offence of cheating.

(13 of 23)
[CRLMP-1910/2016]

15. The essential ingredients to attract

Section 420 IPC are: (i) cheating; (ii)

dishonest inducement to deliver property

or to make, alter or destroy any valuable

security or anything which is sealed or

signed or is capable of being converted

into a valuable security and (iii) mens rea

of the accused at the time of making the

inducement. The making of a false

representation is one of the essential

ingredients to constitute the offence of

cheating under Section 420 IPC. In order

to bring a case for the offence of cheating,

it is not merely sufficient to prove that a

false representation had been made, but,

it is further necessary to prove that the

representation was false to the knowledge

of the accused and was made in order to

deceive the complainant.

16. The distinction between mere breach

of contract and the cheating would depend

upon the intention of the accused at the

time of alleged inducement. If it is
(14 of 23)
[CRLMP-1910/2016]

established that the intention of the

accused was dishonest at the very time

when he made a promise and entered into

a transaction with the complainant to part

with his property or money, then the

liability is criminal and the accused is

guilty of the offence of cheating. On the

other hand, if all that is established that a

representation made by the accused has

subsequently not been kept, criminal

liability cannot be foisted on the accused

and the only right which the complainant

acquires is the remedy for breach of

contract in a civil court. Mere breach of

contract cannot give rise to criminal

prosecution for cheating unless fraudulent

or dishonest intention is shown at the

beginning of the transaction. In S.W.

Palanitkar Ors. vs. State of Bihar Anr.

(2002) 1 SCC 241, this Court held as

under:

“21 ……In order to constitute an

offence of cheating, the intention to
(15 of 23)
[CRLMP-1910/2016]

deceive should be in existence at the time

when the inducement was made. It is

necessary to show that a person had

fraudulent or dishonest intention at the

time of making the promise, to say that he

committed an act of cheating. A mere

failure to keep up promise subsequently

cannot be presumed as an act leading to

cheating.”

The above view in Palanitkar’s case was

referred to and followed in Rashmi Jain vs.

State of Uttar Pradesh Anr. (2014) 13

SCC 553.

23. In Indian Oil Corporation vs. NEPC

India Ltd. Ors., (2006) 6 SCC 736, this

court observed that civil liability cannot be

converted into criminal liability and held as

under:-

(SCC pp. 748-49, paras 13-14)

13. While on this issue, it is necessary to

take notice of a growing tendency in

business circles to convert
(16 of 23)
[CRLMP-1910/2016]

purely civil disputes into criminal cases.

This is obviously on account of a prevalent

impression that civil law remedies are time

consuming and do not adequately protect

the interests of lenders/creditors. Such a

tendency is seen in several family disputes

also, leading to irretrievable breakdown of

marriages/families. There is also an

impression that if a person could somehow

be entangled in a criminal prosecution,

there is a likelihood of imminent

settlement. Any effort to settle civil

disputes and claims, which do not involve

any criminal offence, by applying pressure

through criminal prosecution should be

deprecated and discouraged. In G. Sagar

Suri v. State of U.P. (2000) 2 SCC 636

this Court observed: (SCC p.643, para 8)

” It is to be seen if a matter,

which is essentially of a civil nature, has

been given a cloak of criminal offence.

Criminal proceedings are not a short cut of
(17 of 23)
[CRLMP-1910/2016]

other remedies available in law. Before

issuing process a criminal court has to

exercise a great deal of caution. For the

accused it is a serious matter. This Court

has laid certain principles on the basis of

which the High Court is to exercise its

jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code.

Jurisdiction under this section has to be

exercised to prevent abuse of the process

of any court or otherwise to secure the

ends of justice.”

14. While no one with a legitimate cause

or grievance should be prevented from

seeking remedies available in criminal law,

a complainant who initiates or persists

with a prosecution, being fully aware that

the criminal proceedings are unwarranted

and his remedy lies only in civil law,

should himself be made accountable, at

the end of such misconceived criminal

proceedings, in accordance with law. One

positive step that can be taken by the

courts, to curb unnecessary prosecutions
(18 of 23)
[CRLMP-1910/2016]

and harassment of innocent parties, is to

exercise their power under Section 250

CrPC more frequently, where they discern

malice or frivolousness or ulterior motives

on the part of the complainant. Be that as

it may.”

In the case in hand, from the perusal of FIR

itself, it reveals that respondent no. 2/complainant is

dealing with mineral powder at Beawar in the name of

M/s Bansi Minerals and petitioner/accused Anil Dudha

Bhai Kaneria is doing business in the name of M/s.

Kaneria Grenito Ltd. and there is business dealing

between them since last 5-6 years and it is also decided

that the material will be supplied on the condition that

payment shall be made within 60 days failing which

interest will be leviable at the rate of 13% per annum

and it also reveals that some cheques were given by

petitioners/accused in connection to make payment some

of which have been returned by their banker which shows

that the dispute between petitioners and respondent no.

2 is regarding due payment in tune of Rs. 62,53,152/-.

There is not a single whisper in the FIR that the goods

were taken by petitioners with intention to deceive him,
(19 of 23)
[CRLMP-1910/2016]

when regular business is going on since years and

payment is due then prima facie it cannot be said that

there is cheating. In proceedings instituted on criminal

complaint quashment when warranted, reiterated

exercise of inherent powers to quash the proceedings is

called for only in case where complaint does not disclose

any offence or is frivolous. It is true that powers under

Section 482 Cr.P.C. should be invoked sparingly with

circumspection, it should be exercised to see that process

of law is not abused or mis-used, the settled principle of

law is that at the stage of quashing the complaint/FIR,

High Court is not embark upon an enquiry as to

probability, reliability, or genuineness of allegations made

therein.

In Nagawwa Vs Veeranna Shivalingappa

Konjalgi reported in (1976) 3 SCC 736, Hon’ble

Supreme Court framed following four grounds for

quashing the criminal proceedings :-

(1) where the allegations made in the

complaint or the statements of the

witnesses recorded in support of the same

taken at their face value make out

absolutely no case against the accused or
(20 of 23)
[CRLMP-1910/2016]

the complainant does not disclose the

essential ingredients of an offence which is

alleged against the accused;

(2) where the allegations made in the

complaint are patently absurd and

inherently improbable so that no prudent

person can ever reach a conclusion that

there is a sufficient ground for proceeding

against the accused;

(3)where the discretion exercised by the

Magistrate in issuing process is capricious

and arbitrary having been based either on

no evidence or on materials which are

wholly irrelevant or inadmissible; and

(4) where the complaint suffers from

fundamental legal defects such as, want of

sanction, or absence of a complaint by

legally competent authority and the like.”

Here in the case in hand, from the perusal of

FIR as argued by Learned Counsel for petitioners Mr.

Rajesh Mootha, the ingredients for offence punishable

under Section 420 IPC which are defined in Section 415

IPC are missing. Similarly for offence under Section 406
(21 of 23)
[CRLMP-1910/2016]

IPC, the ingredients of criminal breach of trust enshrined

in Section 405 IPC are missing. So far as Section 504 IPC

is concerned neither date, time or place of such offence

was given nor the words uttered by petitioners are

disclosed, in absence there of, the ingredients of Section

504 IPC are also missing. Now Section 120B IPC remains,

since the ingredients of principal offences are missing,

therefore this offence also can’t find place and the case of

present petitioners comes in the purview of ground 1 and

2 of Nagawwa Vs Veeranna Shivalingappa Konjalgi

case.

In the matter of Taramani Parakh Vs State

of Madhya Pradesh and Others (supra) in Para 11

Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that :-

“Courts should be reluctant and should not

hasten to quash the proceedings even on

the premise that one or two ingredients

have not been stated or do not appear to

be satisfied if there is substantial

compliance with the requirements of the

offence.”

which is not disputed.

(22 of 23)
[CRLMP-1910/2016]

Similarly, in Ashfaq Ahmed Quereshi Anr.

Vs Namrata Chopra Ors., Hon’ble Supreme Court

observed that :-

“As the case raises a large number of

disputed questions of fact, we are of the

considered opinion that there was no

occasion for the High Court to allow the

petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and

quash the criminal proceedings qua the

said respondents. ”

which is also not disputed.

But in the case in hand as discussed above,

there is no such disputed questions, therefore the case

laws cited by Learned Counsel for respondent no.

2/complainant are not applicable in the present case.

As discussed above, in the present case from

the bare perusal of matter, it reveals that, the dispute

between parties is exclusively civil dispute regarding

recovery of money of business transactions, therefore it

is fit case for quashing FIR. Accordingly, the Misc. Petition

is allowed and the impugned FIR No. 863/2015 registered

at Police Station Beawar City, Beawar, District Ajmer for
(23 of 23)
[CRLMP-1910/2016]

offences punishable under Sections 420, 406, 504, 120B

IPC and subsequent proceedings there to are quashed

and set aside.

(BANWARI LAL SHARMA)J.

Charu 108

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *