SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Sohan Lal Gupta And Anr vs State Of Haryana on 26 October, 2018

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 :::

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.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


Not found ...? HOW TO WIN 498a, DV, DIVORCE; Search in Above link

All Law documents and Judgment copies
Laws and Bare Acts of India
Landmark SC/HC Judgements
Rules and Regulations of India.

STUDY REPORTS

Copyright © 2021 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