SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Mandeep Saini vs State Of Punjab And Anr on 21 May, 2019

CriminalMisc.No.M-44238of2016-1-

INTHEHIGHCOURTOFPUNJABANDHARYANA
ATCHANDIGARH

CriminalMisc.No.M-44238of2016
DateofDecision:-21stMay,2019

MandeepSaini

…Petitioner

Versus

StateofPunjabandanother

…Respondents

CORAM:-HON’BLEMR.JUSTICEMANOJBAJAJ

Present:-Mr.ParveenK.Kataria,Advocate
forthepetitioner.

Mr.HarsimarSinghSitta,AAG,Punjab.

Mr.J.S.Virk,Advocate
forrespondentNo.2.

MANOJBAJAJJ.

PetitionerMandeepSainid/oDeepakSainihasfiledthis

petitionunderSection482Cr.P.C.forquashingofFIRNo.19dated

29.2.2016,underSections406and420IPC,registeredatPoliceStation

KotIsseKha,DistrictMogaandconsequentialproceedingsarisingoutofit.

Accordingtothepetitioner,theFIRisnothingbutanabuseof

processoflaw,whichhasbeenlodgedbythecomplainant/respondentNo.2,

whoisanaccusedinacomplaintcasedated09.10.2015underSection138

oftheNegotiableInstrumentsAct,1881(hereinaftertobereferredas’the

1of15
23-06-201918:21:06:::
CriminalMisc.No.M-44238of2016-2-

Act’)broughtbyherfordishonouroftwochequesbearingNo.000104and

000105amountingtoRs.7,00,000/-andRs.3,00,000/-respectively.

TheFIR(AnnexureP-1)lodgedonthebasisofcomplaint

givenbyrespondentNo.2containstheallegationsthatcomplainantbeing

PanchayatSecretaryhadgonetoDistrictCourt,Chandigarhayearagofor

officialworkandafterfinishingthesamehevisitedtheshoppingmall.

TherecomplainantmetMandeepSaini(petitioner)bychanceandafter

introductiontheybothexchangedtheirmobilenumbers.MandeepSaini

allegedlyaskedcomplainantforamonetaryhelpofRs.50,000-60,000/-

withanassurancetoreturnsoon.Thecomplainantonhumanitarianground

depositedasumofRs.50,000/-approximatelyinheraccountnumber

0141000108084924withPunjabNationalBank,KotIseKhan,District

Moga.However,evenafteronemonth,theaccusedneithercalledhimnor

returnedthemoney.Upondemand,itwasassuredthatafterarrangingthe

money,shewouldreturnthemoneytothecomplainant.Whencomplainant

calledheragain,sheextendedthreatsonthegroundofherlinkswithSenior

SuperintendentofPoliceandtoimplicatehiminafalsecase.Itwasfurther

allegedthataccusedaskedhimtocometoZirakpurtotakebackhismoney,

however,shefiledafalsecomplaintonthegroundthatRajwantSinghcame

toherflatandusedabusivelanguage.ThecomplainantwascalledatPolice

Station,Zirakpurtosettlethematter.Accordingtocomplainant,on

03.7.2015healongwithotherSecretariesagainwenttoChandigarhfor

officialworkandafterfinishingthejobhereachedthePoliceStation,

ZirakpurashewascalledbySHODeepIndertopatchupthematter.Itwas

narratedthatinthepolicestation,thepoliceofficialsmisbehavedand

2of15
23-06-201918:21:06:::
CriminalMisc.No.M-44238of2016-3-

snatchedhismobilephoneforciblyandhewasmadetosigntwocheques

amountingtoRs.7,00,000/-andRs.3,00,000/-atgunpointinfavourof

accusedMandeepSaini,besidesobtaininghissignatureson2-3blank

papersalso.Accordingtohim,hemadevariousvisitstoSenior

SuperintendentofPolice,Mohaliforregistrationofthecaseagainstaccused

persons,however,hiseffortsprovedfutile.

Onthecomplaint,aninquirywasmarkedbySenior

SuperintendentofPoliceMoga,whichwaslookedintobythe

SuperintendentofPolice(I),Mogaandaspertheinquiryreportdated

23.1.2016,theoffencewasfoundtohavebeencommittedbyMandeep

Sainid/oDeepakSainialoneandthecognizancewastakenagainstherby

registeringtheimpugnedFIRon29.2.2016,underSections406andSection420

IPC.

Inthispetition,noticeofmotionwasissuedon14.12.2016.

Thesaidorderreadsasunder:-

“Interalia,ithasbeencontendedbylearned
counselforthepetitionerthatFIRisnothingbutcounter-
blasttothecomplaintmovedunderSection138of
NegotiableInstrumentsActbythepetitioner.Infact,
petitionerhadalluredbythecomplainant-RajwantSingh
andreceivedasumofRs.10laconthepretextfor
sendingherabroad.Whenthemattercouldnotbe
finalized,RajwantSinghreturnedthesaidamountby
wayoftwochequesdated23.7.2015and01.8.2015in
thesumofRs.7lacsRs.3lacsrespectively,tobe
drawnatHDFCBank.Boththecomplaintsarepending
trialbeforetheJudicialMagistrateatDeraBassi,SAS
NagarMohali(Punjab).

3of15
23-06-201918:21:06:::
CriminalMisc.No.M-44238of2016-4-

Noticeofmotionfor07.04.2017.

Inthemeanwhile,furtherproceedingsbeforethe
trialCourtshallremainstayed.”

However,inresponsetothepetition,noreplywasfiledeither

bytheStateorbythecomplainantdespitevariousadjournments.

LearnedcounselforthepetitionercontendsthattheFIRhas

beenlodgedtopressurisethepetitioner/accusedtowithdrawhercomplaint

underSection138oftheAct,astwochequesamountingtoRs.7,00,000/-

andRs.3,00,000/-issuedbyRajwantSingh(complainantinthepresent

case)stooddishonoured.Learnedcounselfurtherreferstothecomplaint

dated09.10.2015underSection138oftheAct(AnnexureP-3)tocontend

thatinfactthepetitionerhadpaidasumofRs.10,00,000/-toRajwant

Singh,whohadpromisedtofacilitatehertovisitabroad.Sincehehad

failedtokeephispromise,therefore,toreturnthesaidamountof

Rs.10,00,000/-hehadissuedtwochequesandthattoopursuantto

compromisearrivedatbetweenparties.Theaffidavit(AnnexureP-2)by

respondentNo.2RajwantSinghwasswornwithregardtocompromiseand

forreturnofsaidamounttothepetitioner.

Learnedcounselforthepetitionercontendsthatafterdishonour

ofabovesaidcheques,thestatutorynoticewasissuedon27.8.2015and

uponreceiptofthesame,thecomplainant/respondentgotthisimpugned

FIRlodgedtoexertpressure.ItisfurthercontendedthataspertheFIR,the

allegedoccurrenceisof03.7.2015,whereasthecomplaintwasgivenbythe

complainanton17.9.2016,whichfurtherlendsstrengthtotheargumentof

thepetitionerthatthesameisfiledwithmalafideintentions.Itisfurther

4of15
23-06-201918:21:06:::
CriminalMisc.No.M-44238of2016-5-

contendedthattheversiongivenintheFIRisnotworthbelievingas

accordingtothecomplainantRajwantSinghthathemetthecomplainantin

ashoppingmallandafterintroduction,agreedtoextendtheallegedloanof

Rs.50,000/-inthefirstmeetingitself.

Ontheotherhand,learnedcounselforrespondentNo.2hasnot

disputedthefactofissuanceofchequesinfavourofpetitionerandthe

pendencyofthecomplaintunderSection138oftheAct.Accordingtohim,

complainanthadgivenaloanofRs.55,000/-onfourdifferentdatesi.e.

Rs.30,000/-on07.10.2014,Rs.10,000/-on22.10.2014,Rs.10,000/-on

31.10.2014andRs.5000/-on05.11.2014.Learnedcounselfurthercontends

thatsincetheamountofloanwasnotreturnedbytheaccused,therefore,he

hassufferedawrongfullossandtheoffenceofcheatingisclearlymadeout.

Accordingtohim,thepetitionisfoundedondisputedfacts,whichcanbe

effectivelydecidedafterthepartiesareallowedtoadduceevidence.

Afterhearinglearnedcounselforthepartiesandexaminingthe

materialonrecord,thisCourtfindsthatthecasesetupbythecomplainant

hasnotatallexplaineddelayofmorethanayearingivinghiscomplaintin

respectoftheallegedoccurrence.Aperusalofcomplaintshowsthatitwas

givenbythecomplainanton17.09.2015,wherein,thefirstpartcontainsthe

allegationsofadvancementoffriendlyloantoaccusedMandeepSainiin

October-November2014.Theallegedamountwasdepositedinherbank

accountondifferentdates,however,afterdemandbycomplainant,the

amountwasnotreturned.Thesecondpartofthecomplaintmentionsabout

theoccurrencedated03.7.2015,whenthecomplainantallegedlywentto

PoliceStation,ZirakpurtoseeaccusedMandeepSainiforthepurposeof

5of15
23-06-201918:21:06:::
CriminalMisc.No.M-44238of2016-6-

receivingbackhismoneyandcompromise.ThereaccusedNo.2and3

(officialsofthepolicestation)gavehimbeatings,snatchedhismobileand

forcedhimtosignthetwochequesatgunpoint,allegedlyinfavourof

MandeepSainiforasumofRs.7,00,000/-andRs.3,00,000/-respectively.

Thoughcomplaintdated17.9.2015wasinquiredintoanditwasfoundthat

MandeepSainicommittedafraud,whocheatedthecomplainant,however,

nooffencewasfoundtohavebeencommittedbythepoliceofficersof

PoliceStation,Zirakpur.Itisapparentthatthespecificallegationslevelled

bythecomplainantinthecomplaintregardingoccurrencedated03.7.2015

inrespectofbeatings,snatchingofphoneorforcinghimtosigntwo

chequeswerefoundtobeuntrueasnocognizancewastakeninrespectof

theallegedoffences.Undisputedly,RajwantSinghisfacingprosecutionin

acomplaintcaseunderSection138oftheActinrespectofdishonourofthe

twochequesforasumofRs.7,00,000/-andRs.3,00,000/-respectively,

issuedbyhiminfavourofMandeepSaini.Thedatesonthesaidcheques

areofJulyandAugust2015andthestatutorynoticefordemandofpayment

wasissuedbyMandeepSainion27.8.2015.Therefore,itisabsolutelyclear

thatafterserviceofthesaidnotice,thecomplainantswungintoactionand

submittedcomplainton17.9.2015tosetuphisdefenceinthesaid

complaintcasethatthechequeswereobtainedfromhimforcibly.The

issuanceofnoticebythepetitionerundertheSectionNegotiableInstrumentsAct,

1881andreplybyRajwantSinghwerealsonoticedintheinquirybythe

police,butstrangelyaconclusionwasdrawntoregisterthecaseagainst

MandeepSainiforcommittingtheoffenceunderSections406andSection420IPC,

i.e.non-paymentofallegedloanamount.

6of15
23-06-201918:21:06:::
CriminalMisc.No.M-44238of2016-7-

Apartfromtheabove,acloseanalysisofimpugnedFIRleaves

noroomforanydoubtthattheingredientstoconstitutetheoffences

punishableunderSections406andSection420IPCaremissing.Thedefinitionof

criminalbreachoftrustiscontainedinSection405IndianPenalCodeand

thesamereadsasunder:-

“405.Criminalbreachoftrust

Whoever,beinginanymannerentrustedwith
property,orwithanydominionoverproperty,
dishonestlymisappropriatesorconvertstohisown
usethatproperty,ordishonestlyusesordisposesof
thatpropertyinviolationofanydirectionoflaw
prescribingthemodeinwhichsuchtrustistobe
discharged,orofanylegalcontract,expressor
implied,whichhehasmadetouchingthedischarge
ofsuchtrust,orwillfullysuffersanyotherpersonso
todo,commits”criminalbreachoftrust”.”

Areadingoftheabovemakesitclearthatessentialingredients

toconstitutecriminalbreachoftrustis”EntrustmentofProperty”and

“Dishonestuseofthesame”.AsperfactsgivenintheFIR,theelementof

entrustmentismissinganditisthecaseofthecomplainanthimselfthatit

wasavoluntaryactonhisparttoadvanceafriendlyloantoMandeepSaini

forherdomesticuse.Thenecessaryingredientsof”entrustment”and

“dishonestuse”arelackingintheaboveFIR,and,therefore,thecognizance

inrespectoftheoffenceunderSection406IPCisnotjustified.

Similarly,theoffenceofcheatingisdefinedunderSection415

IndianPenalCode,whichreadsasunder:-

“415.Cheating

Whoever,bydeceivinganyperson,fraudulentlyor
dishonestlyinducesthepersonsodeceivedto
deliveranypropertytoanyperson,ortoconsent
thatanypersonshallretainanyproperty,or

7of15
23-06-201918:21:06:::
CriminalMisc.No.M-44238of2016-8-

intentionallyinducesthepersonsodeceivedtodo
oromittodoanythingwhichhewouldnotdoomit
ifhewerenotsodeceived,andwhichactor
omissioncausesorislikelytocausedamageor
harmtothatpersoninbody,mind,reputationor
property,issaidto”cheat”.

Explanation.Adishonestconcealmentoffactsis
deceptionwithinthemeaningofthissection.”

Againthereisnoinducementonthepartofthepetitioner

muchlessbydeceivinghimandthereforetheoffenceofcheatingwouldnot

bemadeout,merelybecauseofbreachofpromisebytheborrowertoreturn

theloanamount.ThisCourtisnotobliviousofthefactthatallegationsof

thecomplainantregardingsigningthechequesatgunpointwerenot

believedasnooffenceinthatregardwasregisteredbythepolice.The

allegedloanofapproximatelyRs.50,000/-wasadvancedbycomplainantin

theyear2014anditdoesnotappealtoprudenceastowhyrespondentNo.2

issuedthechequesworthRs.10,00,000/-inJuly/August2015infavourof

thepetitionerMandeepSaini.Theallegationsofthecomplainantregarding

advancementofloanarefurtherbeliedbyhisownactandconductasby

issuanceofchequesinfavourofMandeepSaini,itisevidentthatheowed

moneytowardsherandtodischargethesaidliability,thechequeswere

issued.Therefore,cognizanceinrespectoftheoffenceunderSection420

IPCisalsonotsustainable.

Evenforthesakeofargumentsifitisassumedthatitwas

actuallyaloan,asallegedbythecomplainant,whichtheaccused

(petitioner)hadfailedtoreturn,eventhenitwouldnotbeapenaloffence

punishableunderSectiontheIndianPenalCode.Itwouldbeusefultorelyuponthe

judgmentofHon’bleSupremeCourtinSatishchandraRatanlalShahvs.

8of15
23-06-201918:21:06:::
CriminalMisc.No.M-44238of2016-9-

StateofGujaratandanotherinCriminalAppealNo.9of2019(Arising

outofSLP(Crl.)No.5223of2018),decidedon03.1.2019,whereinthe

penalproceedingsbasedonthesimilargroundsofnon-paymentofloan

amountweresetasideandthesaidproceedingsbasedontheFIRwere

quashed.Therelevantparagraphsarereproducedhereunder:-

“xxxxxx

10.Beforeweanalysethiscase,itistobenotedthat
thecriminalapplicationpreferredbytheaccusedbefore
theHighCourtwasagainsttheorderoftheTrialCourt
atthestageofframingofcharges,whereinitistheduty
oftheCourttoapplyitsjudicialmindtothematerial
placedbeforeitandtocometoaclearconclusionthata
primafaciecasehasbeenmadeoutagainsttheaccused.
Anorderforframingofchargesisofseriousconcernto
theaccusedasitaffectshislibertysubstantially.Courts
mustthereforebecautiousthattheirdecisionatthis
stagecausesnoirreparableharmtotheaccused.

11.Comingtotheaspectofquashingofthecharges,
itiswellsettledthatsuchexerciseneedstobe
undertakenbytheHighCourtinexceptionalcases.Itis
alsowellsettledthattheframingofchargesbeinginitial
stagesinthetrialprocess,thecourtthereincannotbase
thedecisionofquashingthechargeonthebasisofthe
qualityorquantityofevidencerathertheenquirymust
belimitedtoaprimafacieexamination.[refertoSectionState
ofBiharvs.RameshSingh,1977CriLJ1606].

12.Havingobservedthebackgroundprinciples
applicableherein,weneedtoconsidertheindividual
chargesagainsttheappellant.TurningtoSection405
readwith406ofSectionIPC,weobservethatthedisputearises
outofaloantransactionbetweentheparties.Itfalls

9of15
23-06-201918:21:06:::
CriminalMisc.No.M-44238of2016-10-

fromtherecordthattherespondentNo.2knewthe
appellantandtheattendantcircumstancesbefore
lendingtheloan.Furtheritisanadmittedfactthatin
ordertorecovertheaforesaidamount,therespondent
No.2hadinstitutedasummarycivilsuitwhichisstill
pendingadjudication.Thelawclearlyrecognizesa
differencebetweensimplepayment/investmentofmoney
andentrustmentofmoneyorproperty.Amerebreachof
apromise,agreementorcontractdoesnot,ipsofacto,
constitutetheoffenceofthecriminalbreachoftrust
containedinSection405IPCwithouttherebeingaclear
caseofentrustment.”

Atthisstageitwillbeusefultoreferthepronouncementofthe

Hon’bleSupremeCourtonexerciseofpowerunderSection482Cr.P.C.

TheinherentpowerscontainedinSection482Cr.P.C.aremeanttodeal

withasituationwherethecriminalproceedingsareattendedwithmalafide

intentionsandtheexerciseofinherentpowersiswarrantedtopreventthe

abuseoftheprocessoflaw.SectionInStateofHaryanaandothersvs.Ch.

BhajanLalandothers,1992Supp(1)SupremeCourtCases335,the

ApexCourthasheldasunder:-

“Thefollowingcategoriesofcasescanbestatedbyway
ofillustrationwhereintheextraordinarypowerunderSectionArticle
226ortheinherentpowersunderSection482,SectionCr.P.C.canbe
exercisedbytheHighCourteithertopreventabuseofthe
processofanycourtorotherwisetosecuretheendsofjustice,
thoughitmaynotbepossibletolaydownanyprecise,clearly
definedandsufficientlychannelisedandinflexibleguidelines
orrigidformulaeandtogiveanexhaustivelistofmyriadkinds
ofcaseswhereinsuchpowershouldbeexercised:-
(1)Wheretheallegationsmadeinthefirstinformation

10of15
23-06-201918:21:06:::
CriminalMisc.No.M-44238of2016-11-

reportorthecomplaint,eveniftheyaretakenattheirface
valueandacceptedintheirentiretydonotprimafacie
constituteanyoffenceormakeoutacaseagainstthe
accused.

(2)Wheretheallegationsinthefirstinformationreportand
othermaterials,ifany,accompanyingtheFIRdonot
discloseacognizableoffence,justifyinganinvestigationby
policeofficersunderSection156(1)oftheCodeexceptunder
anorderofaMagistratewithinthepurviewofSection155
(2)SectionoftheCode.

(3)WheretheuncontrovertedallegationsmadeintheFIR
orcomplaintandtheevidencecollectedinsupportofthe
samedonotdisclosethecommissionofanyoffenceand
makeoutacaseagainsttheaccused.

(4)Where,theallegationsintheFIRdonotconstitutea
cognizableoffencebutconstituteonlyanon-cognizable
offence,noinvestigationispermittedbyaPoliceOfficer
withoutanorderofMagistrateascontemplatedunder
Section155(2)oftheCode.

(5)WheretheallegationsmadeintheFIRorcomplaintare
soabsurdandinherentlyimprobableonthebasisofwhich
noprudentpersoncaneverreachajustconclusionthatthere
issufficientgroundforproceedingagainsttheaccused.
(6)Wherethereisanexpresslegalbarengraftedinanyof
theprovisionsSectionoftheCodeortheconcernedAct(under
whichacriminalproceedingisinstituted)totheinstitution
andcontinuanceoftheproceedingsand/orwherethereis
specificprovisioninSectiontheCodeortheconcernedAct,
providingefficaciousredressforthegrievanceofaggrieved
party.

(7)Whereacriminalproceedingismanifestlyattendedwith
malafideand/orwheretheproceedingismaliciously
institutedwithanulteriormotiveforwreakingvengeanceon

11of15
23-06-201918:21:06:::
CriminalMisc.No.M-44238of2016-12-

theaccusedandwithaviewtospitehimduetoprivateand
personalgrudge.

Wealsogiveanoteofcautiontotheeffectthatthepowerof
quashingacriminalproceedingshouldbeexercisedvery
sparinglyandwithcircumspectionandthattoointherarest
ofrarecases;thatthecourtwillnotbejustifiedinembarking
uponanenquiryastothereliabilityorgenuinenessor
otherwiseoftheallegationsmadeintheFIRorthe
complaintandthattheextraordinaryorinherentpowersdo
notconferanarbitraryjurisdictiononthecourttoact
accordingtoitswhimorcaprice.”

TheaboveviewwasfurtheradoptedbytheSupremeCourtin

SectionM/sPepsiFoodsLtd.vs.SpecialJudicialMagistrate1997(4)RCR

(Criminal)761.FurtherinSectionS.W.Palanitkarvs.StateofBihar2001(4)

RCR(Criminal)572,theproceedingsunderchallengepertainedtoa

complaintcasebroughtunderChapterXVoftheCodeofCriminal

ProcedureandtheHon’bleSupremeCourtwhiledealingwiththepowers

underSection482Cr.P.C.,madethefollowingobservations:-

“27……..Theapproachandconsiderationswhile
exercisingpowerandjurisdictionbyaMagistrateatthe
timeofissuingprocessaretobeintermsofSections200
toSection203underSectionChapterXVofCriminalProcedureCode,
havingdueregardtothepositionoflawexplainedin
variousdecisionsofthisCourt,andwhereaswhile
exercisingpowerunderSection482ofCriminal
ProcedureCodetheHighCourthastolookattheobject
andpurposeforwhichsuchpowerisconferredonit
underthesaidprovision.Exerciseofinherentpoweris
availabletotheHighCourttogiveeffecttoanyorder
underSectiontheCriminalProcedureCode,ortopreventabuse

12of15
23-06-201918:21:06:::
CriminalMisc.No.M-44238of2016-13-

oftheprocessofanyCourtorotherwisetosecurethe
endsofjustice.Thisbeingtheposition,exerciseof
powerunderSection482CriminalProcedureCode
shouldbeconsistentwiththescopeandambitofthe
sameinthelightofthedecisionsaforementioned.In
appropriatecases,topreventjudicialprocessfrom
beinganinstrumentofoppressionorharassmentinthe
handsoffrustratedorvindictivelitigants,exerciseof
inherentpowerisnotonlydesirablebutnecessaryalso,
sothatthejudicialforumoftheCourtmaynotbe
allowedtobeutilisedforanyobliquemotive.Whena
personapproachestheHighCourtunderSection482
CriminalProcedureCodetoquashtheveryissueof
process,theHighcourtonthefactsandcircumstances
ofacasehastoexercisethepowerswithcircumspection
asstatedabovetoreallyservethepurposeandobject
forwhichtheyareconferred.”

Apartfromit,thereisnothingonrecordtoindicatethat

anythinghadhappenedwithinthejurisdictionofPoliceStationMoga,

wherethecognizanceoftheallegedoffencescontainedintheimpugned

FIRwastakenbythepolice.Sections177andSection178oftheCodeofCriminal

Procedurecontemplatetheplaceofinquiryandtrialofanoffence,which

readasunder:-

“177.Ordinaryplaceofinquiryandtrial-Every
offenceshallordinarilybeinquiredintoandtriedbya
courtwithinwhoselocaljurisdictionitwascommitted.

178.Placeofinquiryortrial.-(a)Whenitisuncertain
inwhichofseverallocalareasanoffencewas
committed,or

(b)whereanoffenceiscommittedpartlyinonelocal

13of15
23-06-201918:21:06:::
CriminalMisc.No.M-44238of2016-14-

areaandpartlyinanother,or

(c)whereanoffenceisacontinuingone,and
continuestobecommittedinmorelocalareasthan
one,or

(d)whereitconsistsofseveralactsdoneindifferent
localareas,itmaybeinquiredintoortriedbya
Courthavingjurisdictionoveranyofsuchlocal
areas.”

AperusaloftheFIRrevealsthatacommoncasewassetupby

respondent,asfarastheoccurrencedated03.7.2015isconcerned,which

tookplaceatPoliceStation,Zirakpurandspecificallegationsweremade

againstthetwopoliceofficials.Oncethismaterialpartofthecomplaint

wasdisbelieved,therewasnooccasionforthepolicetoregistertheFIR

onlyinrespectoftheoffencespunishableunderSections406andSection420IPC

atMoga.Thetransactionofadvancementofloanandnon-paymentofthe

samebypetitionerisnotonlyadisputeprimarilyofacivilnaturebutthe

ingredientsoftheseoffencesarealsomissingasdiscussedabove.

ThisCourtiswellawarethatmerelackofterritorial

jurisdictionmaynotbeagroundforquashingtheFIRbutinthepeculiar

factsandcircumstancesofthiscase,itcanbesafelyheldthatthePolice

StationMoga,hadnojurisdictiontoentertainthecomplaintparticularlyin

respectoftheoffencesunderSections406andSection420IPCforwhichtheFIR

hasbeenregistered.Theremaybecases,whereafterregistrationofacase,

theinvestigationcouldbetransferredtothepolicestation,wherethe

territorialjurisdictionlies,butinthebackgroundofthiscaseandthe

conductofthecomplainant,itisapparentthatthecomplaintwaspurposely

14of15
23-06-201918:21:06:::
CriminalMisc.No.M-44238of2016-15-

giventogetthistailor-madeFIRregisteredagainstthepetitioner.

Inviewoftheabovefactsandcircumstancesofthiscase,this

Courtfindsthatthepresentcaseisafitcaseforexerciseofpowerunder

Section482Cr.P.C.astheFIRisnothingbutanabuseoftheprocessofthe

law.Resultantly,theimpugnedFIRNo.19dated29.2.2016,underSections

406andSection420IPC,registeredatPoliceStationKotIsseKha,DistrictMoga

andtheproceedingsarisingoutofitareherebyquashed.

Thepetitionstandsallowed.

21stMay,2019(MANOJBAJAJ)
VijayAsijaJUDGE

Whetherspeaking/reasonedYes/No
WhetherReportableYes/No

15of15
23-06-201918:21:06:::

Leave a Reply

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

Copyright © 2020 SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation
×

Free Legal Help, Just WhatsApp Away

MyNation HELP line

We are Not Lawyers, but No Lawyer will give you Advice like We do

Please read Group Rules – CLICK HERE, If You agree then Please Register CLICK HERE and after registration  JOIN WELCOME GROUP HERE

We handle Women Centric biased laws like False Sectioin 498A IPC, Domestic Violence(DV ACT), Divorce, Maintenance, Alimony, Child Custody, HMA 24, 125 CrPc, 307, 312, 313, 323, 354, 376, 377, 406, 420, 497, 506, 509; TEP, RTI and many more…

MyNation FoundationMyNation FoundationMyNation Foundation