Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 1765 (RAJ)

Umesh Chander Jain v. State of Rajasthan

2002-10-25

H.R.PANWAR

body2002
JUDGMENT 1. - By this Criminal Misc. Application under section 482 Cr.RC., the petitioner has challenged the order of the trial court dated 23.1.1996 arising out of Cr. Case No. 39/96. 2. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. Perused the order impugned and the record of the trial court. 3. A complaint was filed by non-petitioner No. 3 Rajendra Kumar against the petitioner and non-petitioner No. 2 Baij Nath Garg for the offence under sections 420 & 120-B I.RC. on the allegation that the complainant has paid a sum. of Rs. 70,000/- to the petitioner for installation of a Menthol Plant at Sri Ganganagar. The said amount was paid through two different drafts amounting Rs. 30,000/- and 40,000/-. It is alleged that subsequently, the petitioner demanded Rs. 1,10,000/- for the installation of the said plant instead of Rs. 70,000/- for which the non- petitioner did not agree and as such, the non-petitioner No. 3 was cheated by the petitioner and non-petitioner No. 2 by fraudulently or dishonestly inducing the complainant to deliver the property i.e. amount of Rs. 70,000/-. The complaint was filed in the Court of Additional Civil Judge (Sr. Div.) and Judicial Magistrate, Sri Ganganagar. The same was forwarded to the police. The police registered the FIR No. 527/94 at Police Station, Kotwali, Sri Ganganagar. After investigation, police filed negative final report stating therein that no offence of cheating is made out as there was a civil transaction between the parties and the amount paid by the complainant had already been returned to the complainant as per the terms agreed. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has filed a letter written by the petitioner dated 11.8.1994 addressed to Bhagatji Chemicals of which the petitioner is a partner. This letter has not been disputed by the learned counsel appearing for the complainant. The letter reads that the complainant placed an order for installation of machine amounting to Rs. 1,10,000/-, as against the said amount, the complainant has paid Rs. 70,000/- by two different drafts i.e. draft No. 71193 dated 7.6.1994 for Rs. 30,000/- and draft No. 365829 dated 15.6.1994 for Rs. 40,000/-. In the said letter, the complainant has mentioned that for some reasons, he is not interested for said business and, therefore, requested the petitioner to deduct the expenses incurred by them and return the rest of the amount and was agreed that out of Rs. 30,000/- and draft No. 365829 dated 15.6.1994 for Rs. 40,000/-. In the said letter, the complainant has mentioned that for some reasons, he is not interested for said business and, therefore, requested the petitioner to deduct the expenses incurred by them and return the rest of the amount and was agreed that out of Rs. 70,000/-, Rs. 40,000/- be returned. This amount of Rs. 40,000/- was received by the complainant vide cheque No. BA-326497 dated 11.8.1994. The receipt of Rs. 40,000/- by the complainant has not been disputed. 5. I have gone through the police investigation papers and other relevant documents available on record. In my considered opinion the essential ingredients of offence of cheating and criminal conspiracy are completely lacking in the instant case. Prima facie no offence under sections 420 and 120-B I.RC. is made out from the material available on record. In this view of the matter, the order of the trial court cannot be sustained and the same is liable to be set aside. 6. In the result, this Criminal Misc. Application succeeds and is allowed. The order impugned dated 23.1.1996 is set aside. Criminal proceedings initiated against the petitioners in consequences of F.I.R. No. 527/94 RS. Kotwali, Sri Ganganagar are quashed.Petition allowed. *******