Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2001 DIGILAW 472 (RAJ)

Jagdish Pareek v. State of Rajasthan

2001-03-22

SUNIL KUMAR GARG

body2001
JUDGMENT 1. - This criminal misc. petition under section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the accused-petitioner with a prayer that the charge under section 420/34 IPC which was framed by the order dated 9.4.1990, against the accused-petitioner be set aside and proceedings in Criminal Case No. 11/87 pending in the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate No. 1, Bikaner be quashed. 2. This criminal misc. petition arises in the following circumstances : That on complaint of respondent No. 2, a case was instituted against the present accused-petitioner and another accused-Ashok Kumar Pareek. The gist of the complaint is that accused-Ashok Kumar Pareek and present accused-petitioner came to Bikaner on 30.1.1982 to purchase yarn from the firm of the complainant-respondent No. 2. It is further alleged that on 30.1.1982, 200 kgs. woollen yarn @ Rs. 40/- per kg. was purchased and the goods were delivered as per the terms and conditions within 60 days. The accused-Ashok Kumar Pareek and accused-petitioner were to pay the cost of the garn. It is further alleged that the Hundi was dishonoured, therefore, the complainant has suffered a loss of Rs. 80,080 /- and thus, the present accused-petitioner and main accused-Ashok Kumar Pareek committed offence of cheating. 3. That on this complaint vide order dated 9.4.1990, the learned Magistrate framed charges for offence under section 420 IPC against the accused-Ashok Kumar Pareek and for offence under section 420/34 IPC against the present accused-petitioner. 4. Aggrieved by the order dated 9.4.1990, accused-Ashok Kumar Pareek presented a S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No. 312/90 which was decided by this Court on 9.8.1996. This Court allowed the misc. petition and order dated 9.4.1990 by which Ashok Kumar Pareek was to be charged as well as the order of framing change for offence under section 420 IPC was also quashed, meaning thereby that the proceedings against the accused-Ashok Kumar Pareek were quashed. 5. In this petition, the learned counsel for the accused-petitioner-Jagdish Pareek who was charged for offence under section 420/34 IPC has raised only one argument and has stated that since S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No. 312/90 filed by the main accused has been allowed by this Court and charge under section 420 has been quashed, then the charge framed against the present petitioner for offence under section 420/34 IPC should have been set aside and proceedings should have been quashed. 6. Petition No. 312/90 filed by the main accused has been allowed by this Court and charge under section 420 has been quashed, then the charge framed against the present petitioner for offence under section 420/34 IPC should have been set aside and proceedings should have been quashed. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Public Prosecutor. No one has appeared on behalf of respondent No. 2. Since the main accused in the complaint of respondent No. 2 is Ashok Kumar Pareek against whom proceedings have been quashed, the proceedings pending against the present accused-petitioner who was charged with the aid of Section 34 IPC are also liable to be quashed.For the reason mention above, this criminal misc. petition is allowed and the order dated 9.4.1990 whereby charge under section 420/34 IPC was framed against the accused-petitioner is also set aside and the proceedings pending in the Court of Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate No. 1, Bikaner in Criminal Case No. 11/ 1987 against the present petitioner are also quashed.Criminal misc. petition allowed. *******