Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2001 DIGILAW 128 (RAJ)

Bhuvnesh Sharma v. State of Rajasthan

2001-01-23

MOHD.YAMIN

body2001
JUDGMENT 1. - This misc. petition Under section 482 Cr PC. has been preferred to quash the FIR No. 602/99 of Police Station, Karauli which was registered for offences Under sections 406, 420, 467, 468, 471 & 120-B IPC. 2. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Public Prosecutor for the State as well as learned counsel for the complainant. 3. Briefly stated, a complaint was filed by Suresh Lavania against the petitioner and others alleging that the bus No. RJ-24/P-0341 was purchased from its registered owner Vishnu Lavania for Rs. 6,51,000/- on 5.8.97. He received the possession of the bus on the same date and it was running on Karauli-Dholpur route. Prem chand came to him in October, 1997 along with a boy named Bhuvnesh and wanted to purchse the bus. The transaction was completed and it was agreed that the bus would be sold for Rs. 7,25,000/-. The bus was handed over along with its key on 29.10.98. Then prem Chand came to the complainant on 11.11.97 and wanted to get the agreement to sell. The agreement was executed in the name of Bhuvnesh. It is alleged that Prem Chand put the signature of Bhuvnesh and when he objected, Prem Chand assured that his son would not object. It was also agreed that till all the instalments are paid, the bus would be in their possession as security. Though some instalments were paid yet later on the balance was not paid and then the bus was sold to Babulal. The said Prem Chand Sharma was an employee of police department and he did this under a conspiracy and that by selling the bus to Babulal, the complainant was duped. A sum of Rs. 3,00,000/- was in balance which was not paid and, therefore, offences Under section 406, 420, 467, 468, 471 & 120-B IPC was made out. The complaint was sent to the police and FIR was registered. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the case is purely of civil nature and has been given the colour of criminal case in order to pressurise the petitioner. The complaint was sent to the police and FIR was registered. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the case is purely of civil nature and has been given the colour of criminal case in order to pressurise the petitioner. He relied on Nageshwar Prasad Singh alias Sinha v. Nayaran Singh & Anr., (1998) 5 SCC 694 and also drew my attention to various documents including the agreement for sale and a receipt signed by Suresh Chand Sharma on 13.8.98 which mentions that all the installments upto 5.8.98 were cleared and that the principal amount according to the agreement had been received. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that this is a matter of purely civil nature and, therefore, the first information report should be quashed. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the complainant Suresh Sharma and learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the matter was criminal and police has concluded that a case Under section 406 IPC was made out. They relied on J.P. Sharma v. Vinod Kumar Jain & Ors., (1986) 3 SCC 67 in which it has been held that if prima facie offences are made out on the basis of allegations made in the complaint, the High Court without going into truth or otherwise allegations, cannot exercise its powers Under section 482 Cr.P C. 6. So far as the facts of present case are concerned, as I have already stated there are receipts by Suresh Chand Sharma and one of them is dated 13.8.98 which mentions that apart from the advance instalment, all the installments were paid and that as per the agreement, the whole amount was received. This receipt is dated 13.8.98 and bears signature of Suresh Chand Sharma on a stamp. There is still another receipt dated 18.8.98 which mentions that a sum of Rs. 38,500/- was received and the account was settled. Another receipt dated 11.11.97 issued by Sugan Chand Lavania to mentions the receipt of Rs. 1,50,000/- towards the price of the bus. So, after looking into these receipts and the document concerned, I am of clear view that prima facie itself the case appears to be of civil nature and this Court should interfere in such a matter. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Nageshwar Prasad Singh alias Sinha v. Narayan Singh & Anr. (supra) differentiated between cheating or civil dispute. So, after looking into these receipts and the document concerned, I am of clear view that prima facie itself the case appears to be of civil nature and this Court should interfere in such a matter. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Nageshwar Prasad Singh alias Sinha v. Narayan Singh & Anr. (supra) differentiated between cheating or civil dispute. The facts were that there existed an agreement for sale and earnest money was paid to the appellant and part possession of land was transferred to the complainants. Complaint laid on the basis that the appellant cheated them of the earnest money as he was not willing to complete the bargain. It was held in the circumstances of the case that liability of the complainant if any is of civil nature and not criminal. Entire proceedings were quashed by the Supreme Court. So, when prima facie a case of cheating is not made out, this Court has jurisdiction Under section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the proceedings. Hence, the principle laid down in J.P. Sharma v. Vinod Kumar Jain & Ors. (supra), limits only to the effect that if a prima facie case is made out on the basis of allegations made in the complaint then only the High Court cannot exercise its powers Under section 482 Cr.PC. In this case, it is clear that it is a matter of civil nature which has been given the colour of criminal in order to pressurise and this Court has wide powers to suppress this mischief by using the powers Under section 482 Cr.P.C. I am conscious that the jurisdiction Under section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash a first information report is limited but it is one of such cases in which I have to put my foot down in order to suppress the mischief by using the powers Under section 482 Cr.P.C. 7. Consequently, the petition is allowed and FIR No. 602/99 of Police Station Karauli is hereby quashed. Consequently, if any proceeding's on the basis of this FIR are taken, they also stand quashed.Petition Under section 482 Cr.P.C. allowed. *******