Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 804 (JHR)

Anil Kumar Agrawal v. State of Jharkhand

2012-06-14

PRASHANT KUMAR

body2012
Judgment Prashant Kumar, J. This is an application for quashing the entire criminal proceeding in connection with B.T.P.S. Case no. 85/2000 corresponding to G.R. no. 838/2000 pending in the court of A.C.J.M. Bermo at Tenughat. 2. Respondent no.3 namely Motilal Mahto filed a complaint in the court of A.C.J.M. Bermo, which was sent to Bokaro Thermal Power Station for institution of F.I.R. and investigation vide order dated 20.10.2000. Accordingly, B.T.P.S.case no. 85/2000 dated 24.10.2000 under section 384/386/467/468/471/420 of the I.P.C. instituted. 3. In brief, prosecution story, as narrated in the complaint petition is that the respondent no.3(complainant) purchased a truck bearing registration no. 17G-4458 from petitioner for a sum of Rs. 3,00,000/-. It is further stated that since truck was not in a condition to ply, it was agreed between the parties that complainant will get it repaired and deduct the price of repairing from consideration amount and pay rest of the amount in cash. It is further stated that complainant spent Rs. 1,46,000/- towards repairing of said truck, thus, he is required to pay only rest of the amount by cash or by bank draft. It is alleged that at the time of purchase, petitioner took various signatures of complainant on different papers and assured complainant that said papers will be returned on payment of consideration amount with no objection certificate. It is alleged that after receiving entire consideration amount, petitioner issued Form-35 (No Objection Certificate) in favour of complainant and on the basis of said Form-35, complainant got the owner book transferred in his name from the office of District Transport Officer. It is stated that thereafter, complainant sold said truck to somebody else. It is stated that petitioner even after receiving entire consideration amount did not return documents signed by the complainant and now he is threatening to get the owner book of the truck cancelled on the basis of documents available with him. It is further alleged that petitioner may convert aforesaid signed paper into valuable documents and cheat complainant. 4. Sri S.L.Agrawal, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that present complaint petition filed with malafide intention to evade payment of the petitioner’s dues. He further submits that from the averments made in the complaint petition no offence under sections 384/386/467/468/471/420 of the I.P.C. is made out, thus, F.I.R. is liable to be quashed. 4. Sri S.L.Agrawal, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that present complaint petition filed with malafide intention to evade payment of the petitioner’s dues. He further submits that from the averments made in the complaint petition no offence under sections 384/386/467/468/471/420 of the I.P.C. is made out, thus, F.I.R. is liable to be quashed. It is submitted that even if the allegations made in the complaint petition are taken to be true on their face value, same constitutes only a civil dispute, which can be resolved by a competent civil court. It is submitted that in fact, petitioner filed Money Suit in the court of Civil Judge, Senior Division, Purulia for a decree of recovery of Rs. 3,33,368/- with 18% interest towards price of truck in question. Accordingly, it is submitted that since a civil case is pending, it is not desirable to prosecute petitioner on the same facts. Accordingly, it is submitted that entire criminal proceeding be quashed. 5. On the other hand Mr. M.K.Dey, learned counsel for respondent no.3 submitted that offences as enumerated in the complaint petition are made out against the petitioner. Thus, at the initial stage it is not desirable to quash the entire criminal proceeding. Accordingly, he submits that present writ application be dismissed. 6. Having heard the submissions, I have gone through the records of the case. 7. It appears that dispute between the party relates to payment of price of truck bearing registration no. BR 17G-4458, which complainant had purchased from petitioner. It is stated by the complainant that he has paid entire amount and in lieu of said payment, respondent no.3 issued no objection certificate ( Form-35). It is stated that thereafter, respondent no.3 got the owner book of said truck transferred in his own name and later on sold it to somebody else. 8. On the other hand, according to petitioner, respondent no.3 have not paid consideration amount and because of that a Money Suit filed in the Court of Civil Judge, Senior Division, Purulia vide Money Suit no. 37/2000 for recovery of consideration amount. 9. From perusal of plaint of Money Suit (Annexure-2) it appears that petitioner had specifically made averments that he has not issued any From-35 in favour of defendant, and alleged Form-35 is forged and manufactured document. 37/2000 for recovery of consideration amount. 9. From perusal of plaint of Money Suit (Annexure-2) it appears that petitioner had specifically made averments that he has not issued any From-35 in favour of defendant, and alleged Form-35 is forged and manufactured document. It is also stated that petitioner had not paid entire consideration amount thus, question of issuance of Form-35 does not arise. 10. Thus, from the material available on record, it appears that dispute between the parties is purely civil in nature and same can be decided by competent civil court. 11. As noticed above, since Money Suit is pending before a civil court in which all the issues (raised in the present complaint petition) have already been raised and the same is required to be decided by the Civil Court, in my view, present criminal proceeding is unwarranted. 12. Moreover, from perusal of complaint petition, I find that no offence under sections 384/386/467/468/471/420 of the I.P.C. are made out. There is no averment in the complaint petition that petitioner puts respondent no.3 in fear of any injury and, thereby dishonestly induces him to deliver any property, or valuable security or sign and sealed on any document which can be converted into a valuable security. Thus, offence under sections 384/386 of the I.P.C. are not made out. 13. So far offence under sections 467/468/471 o the I.P.C. are concerned , it has been held by their Lordship of Supreme Court in “Sardar Trilok Singh and others vs Satya Deo Tripathi” (1979)4 SCC-396 that obtaining signature of a person on a blank sheet of paper by itself is not an offence of forgery or the like. It becomes an offence when the paper is fabricated into a document of the kind which attracts relevant provisions of Penal Code making it an offence or when such document is used as a genuine document. 14. In the instant case, there is no averments that petitioner after taking signature of respondent no.3 has fabricated the said paper into a document mentioned in the I.P.C. and used the same as genuine document. Thus, offence of forgery is also not made out. 15. Now, coming to offence under section 420 of the I.P.C. is concerned, there is no allegation that petitioner fraudulently and dishonestly deceived respondent no.3 or induce him to deliver any property to the petitioner or anybody else. Thus, offence of forgery is also not made out. 15. Now, coming to offence under section 420 of the I.P.C. is concerned, there is no allegation that petitioner fraudulently and dishonestly deceived respondent no.3 or induce him to deliver any property to the petitioner or anybody else. Thus, in my view, offence under section 420 of the I.P.C. is also not made out against the petitioner. 16. In view of aforesaid discussion, I find that dispute between the parties is purely a civil dispute, which can only be decided by a competent civil court and it appears that a Money Suit is already pending before Civil Judge, Senior Division, Purulia. I further find from the averments made in the complaint petition that none of the offences as enumerated in the F.I.R. are made out. Thus, I find that continuation of present criminal proceeding against the petitioner is an abuse of the process of court. 17. In the result, this writ application is allowed. The F.I.R. and the entire criminal proceeding in connection with B.T.P.S.case no. 85/2000, corresponding to G.R.No.838/2000 dated 24.10.2000 pending in the Court of A.C.J.M. Bermo at Tenughat is hereby quashed.