Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 208 (PNJ)

Parveen Khanna v. State of Punjab

2014-01-24

SURINDER GUPTA

body2014
JUDGMENT : Surinder Gupta, J. This petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing of FIR No. 20 dated 6.3.2012 registered for offence under Sections 420, 465, 468, 471 and 120-B IPC at Police Station Navi Baradari, Jalandhar. 2. The complainant-Dharminder Mehta had business dealings with M/s P.V.K. Engineering Company, Mohalla Santokhpur, Opp. Unico Pipe Fittings, Jalandhar. The allegations levelled by him in the complaint which formed the basis for registration of the impugned FIR are as follows :- "I had business dealing with aforementioned company for quite some time. When we checked our account with this company at that time it came to our knowledge that this company has shown Rs.2 lacs in their books on 04.01.2011 and we do not know anything in this regard and they have put one cheque No.43697 dated 06.08.2008 amounting to Rs.1,30,000/- in their books. I do not know anything with regard to this and it has not been credited in my bank. I have got the Bank statement of the same. This company has made a wrong entry in their statement of account of Rs.1,30,000/- with regard to giving it to our company and have made a wrong statement of our account. The audit of which has been prepared by Nitin Kanwal CO CAM No.504137 Railway Road, Hoshiarpur. It is, therefore, requested that matter be investigated and strict legal action be taken against the accused." 3. Additional Deputy Commissioner of Police-I, Jalandhar, after enquiry found that some amount was shown as paid to the complainant in the account books of the accused firm. These amounts had not been received by the complainant. His conclusion narrowed down to two such entries in the account books of M/s PV.K. Engineering Company : (i) payment of Rs. 1,30,000/- to the complainant vide cheque No.43697 dated 6.8.2008; (ii) payment of Rs. 2,00,000/- on 4.1.2011. 4. Firstly, the entry was in the record of the accused and there are no allegations that any claim based on these entries was raised against the complainant. Secondly, no amount was paid by the complainant on the basis of the entries in the account books of the petitioners. While making entries for the years 2008-2011, in the account books of the petitioners, there was neither any deceit nor any fraud played on the complainant. 5. Secondly, no amount was paid by the complainant on the basis of the entries in the account books of the petitioners. While making entries for the years 2008-2011, in the account books of the petitioners, there was neither any deceit nor any fraud played on the complainant. 5. Now the question arises as to whether a prima facie case for offence under Sections 420/120-B IPC is disclosed from allegations levelled in the complaint which formed basis for registration of impugned FIR. The provisions of Section 420 IPC reads as under :- "S.420 Whoever cheats and thereby dishonestly induces the person deceived to deliver any property to any person, or to make, alter or destroy the whole or any part of a valuable security, or anything which is signed or sealed, and which is capable of being converted into a valuable security, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall be liable to fine." 6. The offence of cheating is established when the accused had induced the complainant to deliver him any property or to do or omit to do something which he would otherwise not have done or omitted. 7. The word 'cheating' is defined in Section 415 IPC which reads as follows :- "Section 415. Whoever, by deceiving any person, fraudulently or dishonestly induces the person so deceived to deliver any property to any person, or to consent that any person shall retain any property, or would not do or omit if he were not so deceived, and which act or omission causes or is likely to cause damage or harm to that person in body, mind, reputation or property, is said to "cheat". 8. In order to make out 'cheating' it is required that the accused had deceived or fraudulently or dishonestly induced the complainant to deliver him any property. 9. The ingredients to constitute the offence of 'cheating' as defined in Section 415 IPC are as follows :- "(1) Deception of any person. 8. In order to make out 'cheating' it is required that the accused had deceived or fraudulently or dishonestly induced the complainant to deliver him any property. 9. The ingredients to constitute the offence of 'cheating' as defined in Section 415 IPC are as follows :- "(1) Deception of any person. (2) (a) Fraudulently or dishonestly inducing that person (i) to deliver any property to any person; or (ii) to consent that any person shall retain any property; or (b) intentionally inducing that person to do or omit to do anything which he would not do or omit if he were not so deceived, and which act or omission causes or is likely to cause damage or harm to that person in body, mind, reputation or property." 10. The entries in the account books even if wrong, do not constitute any offence until and unless on the basis of those entries some claim is raised or any party is compelled to pay or is induced to make payment or adjustment or enter into any transaction. The entry of Rs. 1,30,000/- was clarified by the bank vide Annexure P/4 stating that the cheque No.43697 was debited from the account of M/s P.V.K. Engineering Company to the account of M/s J.P. Steels. It has been argued that this mistake came to the notice of the Chartered Accountant and on his pointing out the same, it was rectified on the same day. The complaint made to the police was in undue haste and appears to be due to filing of the complaint under Section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 by M/s P.V.K. Engineering against the complainant. The complainant in his complaint has no where raised the plea that on the basis of entries in the account books of the petitioner any claim has been raised in order to cheat or defraud him. There was no basis for the Enquiry Officer (Additional Deputy Commissioner of Police) while making observations in his report that "PVK Engineering Company has cheated the applicant by making false documents". On this enquiry report, District Attorney (Legal) has given the opinion in a mechanical manner that 'prima facie offence under Sections 420,465, 468, 471, 120-B IPC is made out'. 11. While registering the FIR, in such like cases the police has to act with caution as the question of personal liberty of a citizen is involved. On this enquiry report, District Attorney (Legal) has given the opinion in a mechanical manner that 'prima facie offence under Sections 420,465, 468, 471, 120-B IPC is made out'. 11. While registering the FIR, in such like cases the police has to act with caution as the question of personal liberty of a citizen is involved. The filing of the FIR, submission of the challan and continuation of the proceedings before the trial court in this case will amount to misuse of process of law. It appears that the complainant has swung into action immediately after the filing of the complaint under Section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act against him and got registered one after another FIR against them. He firstly lodged FIR No.159 dated 4.10.2011 against petitioners No.2 and 3, which has also been ordered to be quashed in a separate case today. 12. In the facts and circumstances discussed above, it would be unfair to compel the petitioners to undergo rigmarole of a criminal trial. The registration of the FIR against the petitioners is nothing but abuse of process of law. 13. In view of my discussion above, the instant petition is allowed and the FIR No.20 dated 6.3.2012 registered for offence under Sections 420, 465, 468, 471, 120-B IPC at Police Station Navi Baradari, Jalandhar along with all consequential proceedings arising therefrom is quashed.