250
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Crl. Misc. No. M-4041 of 2017
Date of Decision: October 26, 2018
Sohan Lal Gupta and others
……Petitioners
versus
State of Haryana and another
…..Respondents
CORAM: HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE SUDHIR MITTAL
***
Present: Mr. Aman Pal, Advocate
for the petitioners
Mr. Satish Saini, AAG Haryana
Mr. K.C. Singla, Advocate
for the complainant
-.-
Sudhir Mittal, J. (Oral)
The petitioners are co-accusd in FIR No. 471 dated dated 15.08.2016
registered under Sections 420, 406, 506 IPC at Police Station City Fatehabad,
District Fatehabad.
The FIR has been registered on the complaint of one Rahul Goyal
proprietor of Neelkanth Steel. It states that said Rahul Goyal had business dealings
with Sanjay Kumar proprietor of Shri Sarsainath Trading Company, Sirsa. He used
to supply material on demand of Sanjay Kumar and payments used to be received
on time. However, certain bills for the period 15.10.2015 to 15.12.2015 amounting
to Rs. 43,92,877/- were not cleared. Despite repeated demands, the money was not
paid. Petitioner No. 1 i.e. brother of Sanjay Kumar undertook to clear the dues of
the complainant but did not do so. Thereafter, the complainant was threatened by
the petitioners as Sanjay Kumar fled from the city.
Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that from a bare perusal of
the FIR, no offence either under Section 406 IPC or under Section 420 IPC is made
out. Admittedly, the complainant had business dealings with Sanjay Kumar and
some money was outstanding. The dispute is purely civil in nature. Moreover,
1 of 3
05-11-2018 06:02:05 :::
Crl. Misc. No. M-4041 of 2017 -2-
there is no allegation in the entire FIR that either of the petitioners were involved in
the business dealings with the complainant. The allegations of threats held out by
the petitioners are based upon the phone call allegedly made by the complainant but
during the course of the investigation no call detail records had been obtained.
Thus, lodging of the FIR is an abuse of the process of law and deserves to be
quashed.
Learned counsel for the complainant submits that a huge amount of Rs.
43,92,877/- is outstanding against Sanjay Kumar and the petitioners and Sanjay
Kumar has fled from the city alongwith his wife. Thus, all of them deserve to be
proceeded against criminally.
Learned State counsel argues that the petitioners are accused of holding
out threats and, therefore, atleast the offence under Section 506 IPC is made out.
It is settled law that in case a bare perusal of the FIR does not reveal
any criminal offence, the FIR should be quashed. In the present case, there is no
allegation in the entire FIR that either of the petitioners were part of business
dealings with the complainant. There is also no allegation that either of the
petitioners were entrusted some property or they ever induced the complainant with
dishonest intention to part with property. So far as holding out of threats is
concerned, this allegation is only against petitioner No. 1 and not against petitioner
No. 2. Even against petitioner No. 1, the allegation is that the threat was held out
over telephone but there is no evidence collected by the police during the course of
the investigation that the complainant even made a telephone call to petitioner No.
1. It is, thus, obvious that the petitioners have been roped in only to arm twist
Sanjay Kumar.
In view of the above, registration of the aforementioned FIR against the
petitioners is an abuse of the process of criminal law. Accordingly, the petition is
allowed and FIR No. 471 dated dated 15.08.2016 registered under Sections 420,
2 of 3
05-11-2018 06:02:05 :::
Crl. Misc. No. M-4041 of 2017 -3-
406, 506 IPC at Police Station City Fatehabad, District Fatehabad is quashed qua
the petitioners.
However, the complainant would be at liberty to pursue any other civil
remedy that may be available to him under the law.
October 26, 2018 [SUDHIR MITTAL]
reena JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether Reportable : Yes/No
3 of 3
05-11-2018 06:02:05 :::
