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