Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 588 (JHR)

Radheshyam Goswami v. State Of Jharkhand

2006-05-10

AMARESHWAR SAHAY

body2006
JUDGMENT Amareshwar Sahay, J. 1. Heard. 2. The prayer of the petitioner in this writ application is for quashing of the F.I.R. dated 27.04.2005 registered as Jharia P.S. Case No. 185/05 corresponding to G.R. No. 1221/05 under Sections 420/120-B of the Indian Penal Code against the five named accused persons including the petitioner Radheshyam Goswami. 3. Mr. V. Shivnath, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner vehemently argued mainly on two grounds for quashing of the present F.I.R.. Firstly, that even if the allegations made in the F.I.R. is taken to be correct in its face value, no offence whatsoever under Section 420/120-B of the Indian Penal Code is made out against the petitioner and secondly that the present F.I.R. was hit be Section 162 Cr.P.C. because with regard to the same occurrence, one Nitesh Agarwal had already submitted a complaint to the Officer Incharge, Jharia Police Station which has already been entered in Station Diary Entry and therefore, for the same occurrence, the institution of present F.I.R. was bad in law. 4. In support of his submissions, Mr. V. Shivnath, learned Counsel for the petitioner has relied on decisions (S.W. Palanikar and Ors. v. State of Bihar and Anr.) and AIR 2000 SC 2341 (Hridaya Ranjan Pd. Verma and Ors. v. State of Bihar and Anr.). 5. From the allegations made in the present F.I.R. lodged by one Ajit Keshri, it appears that it has been alleged therein that one day Shailesh Kejriwal came there and gave him offer along with some other shopkeepers of Jharia area to give 10% commission on purchase of Reliance Mobile Recharge Coupon, if the same is purchased from him. Two-three days thereafter, Rohit Kejriwal, Shailesh Kejriwal and Radheshyam Goswami came to his shop and Radheshyam Goswami told him that he takes the guarantee of their money would be quite safe. On the next day, the informant paid Rs. 32,000/- for the purchase of Recharge Coupons. 6. It is further alleged in the F.I.R. that again on 10th March, the accused persons induced the informant to invest huge amounts to have large stock so that they may not face difficulties in near future. Thereafter, on 27.03.2005, in the morning, Shailesh came to the shop of the informant and told him to give money in the evening in his uncles (MAMA) house at Swami Niwas situated at Rajbari Road (Mr. Thereafter, on 27.03.2005, in the morning, Shailesh came to the shop of the informant and told him to give money in the evening in his uncles (MAMA) house at Swami Niwas situated at Rajbari Road (Mr. V. Shivnath, learned Counsel for the petitioner, clarified that MAMA is the present petitioner). Thereafter, the informant went there at about 7:00 P.M. Shailesh asked as to how much money the informant and other persons had brought there. On this, Nitesh Agarwal, Ajit Keshri, Dhananjay Vishwakarma and Mohan Singh gave the money in the hands of Radheshyam Goswami totaling Rs.2,50,000/- by way of advance. Thereafter, Radheshyam Goswami told the informant and other persons who had given money to him to come again in the evening of 05.04.2005 to take Recharge Coupon of Reliance Mobile from him but when the informant went there, the accused Radheshyam Goswami was not there. Thereafter, on 07.04.2005, at about 6:00 in the morning, the informant went to the house of Pawan Kejriwal where the Rohit Kejriwal and Radheshyam Goswami and other business men were also present to whom also the said recharge coupons were not supplied. On enquiry, Pawan Kejriwal told that he would make supply of recharge coupons by 11.04.2005 otherwise, he would return the amounts. On this, Dinesh Gupta of Durgapur and Punit Choudhary of Jharia also told that huge amounts had been taken by the accused persons for supply of recharge coupons but neither the same was supplied to them nor the money was refunded for the last twenty days. 7. It is further alleged in the F.I.R. that on 09.04.2005, when the informant and other persons went to Radheshyam Goswami for taking back the amounts given to him, he asked him to forget about the money otherwise he would lodge false case against them. 8. From the aforesaid allegations made by the informant, it appears that the against the petitioner, he has specifically alleged that this petitioner took guarantee on behalf of the other accused named in the F.I.R. by stating the following words "TUM LOGON KE PAISON KI GUARANTEE HUM LETE HAIN, PAISA KAHIN NAHIN JAYEGA". 8. From the aforesaid allegations made by the informant, it appears that the against the petitioner, he has specifically alleged that this petitioner took guarantee on behalf of the other accused named in the F.I.R. by stating the following words "TUM LOGON KE PAISON KI GUARANTEE HUM LETE HAIN, PAISA KAHIN NAHIN JAYEGA". The second allegation, as it appears from the F.I.R. against the petitioner is that the informant went to the house of the present petitioner at about 7:00 P.M. on 27.03.2005 and then, at that place, the accused Shailesh asked the informant as to how much money he has brought and then, total amount of Rs. 2,50,000/- including the amount of Rs.80,000/- paid by the informant, was handed over to the petitioner Radheshyam Goswami by way of advance for paying the same to Shailesh Kejriwal and Rohit Kejriwal and other accused persons. 9. From the last portion of the F.I.R., it further appears that when the informant etc. suspected that they have been cheated by the accused persons then, they went to the petitioner on 09.04.2005 for refund of their amount and at this, the petitioner became angry and asked the informant and others to forget about the amount and otherwise, they would be falsely implicated in several cases. 10. Mr. V. Shivnath, learned counse for the petitioner further submitted that from the allegations in the F.I.R., this case can be said to be a case of breach of terms of the agreement and in any event, no case for Section 420 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code can be said to be made out against this petitioner since there is no allegation against him that the petitioner in any way induced the informant or any other person to pay any amount to the other accused persons named in the F.I.R. 11. The submissions of learned Counsel for the petitioner does not appear to be correct in view of the specific allegation in the F.I.R. against him that it is only on his inducement, who, by taking guarantee on behalf of the other accused persons, the huge sum of money was delivered to him for paying it to the other accused persons namely Shailesh Kejriwal and Rohit Kejriwal and it is only on his assurance that the money would be safe, the informant etc. invested their money. 12. invested their money. 12. In this view of the fact, it cannot be said that from the allegations made in the F.I.R., no offence at all or no offence under Sections 420/120-B of the Indian Penal Code is made out against the petitioner. 13. There is no dispute so far as the proposition of law is concerned which has been settled by a catena of decisions upto the Apex Court that the power of the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. or under Section 227 of the Constitution of India, for quashing of the investigation or the complaint in its threshold is limited to a very extreme exception and only in a case where ingredients of the alleged offence is not satisfied even prima-facie then in exercise of power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. or Article 227 of the Constitution of India, such F.I:R./Complaint can be quashed. Therefore, it depends upon the facts and circumstances of each case. 14. In the present case, as noticed above, I find that the facts alleged in the F.I.R. prima-facie makes out a case for investigation by the Police into the allegations made against the petitioner by the informant and therefore, in my view, no case for quashing of the F.I.R. is made out on the facts alleged in the F.I.R. The two decisions cited by learned Counsel for the petitioner does not apply in the present case as the facts of those two cases and of the present F.I.R. quite different. 15. So far the points raised by the petitioner that the present F.I.R. is hit by Section 162 Cr.P.C. is concerned, in my view, the said submission is liable to be rejected out rightly on the ground that earlier the complaint was lodged by one Nitesh Agarwal before the Jharia Police which was entered in the Station Diary Entry by the Police. The said complaint was with regard to the grievance of Nitesh Agarwal and there was no mention of the grievance of the informant of the present F.I.R.. Therefore, it cannot be said that for the same very occurrence and same very allegations, by the same aggrieved person, a report was already lodged before the Police. Neither the informant was the same nor the allegations made in the present F.I.R. were the same and therefore, it cannot be said that the present F.I.R. is hit by Section 162 Cr.P.C. 16. Neither the informant was the same nor the allegations made in the present F.I.R. were the same and therefore, it cannot be said that the present F.I.R. is hit by Section 162 Cr.P.C. 16. Accordingly, having no merit in this application, the same is hereby dismissed.