Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 517 (RAJ)

Mohanlal v. State of Rajasthan

2016-04-12

BANWARI LAL SHARMA

body2016
JUDGMENT : Banwari Lal Sharma, J. 1. Petitioner accused Mohanlal preferred this Criminal Misc. Petition under section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of the FIR No. 609/15 registered at Police Station Muhana, Jaipur for offence u/s 420, 406, 323, 341 IPC. 2. JUDGMENT : Banwari Lal Sharma, J. 1. Petitioner accused Mohanlal preferred this Criminal Misc. Petition under section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of the FIR No. 609/15 registered at Police Station Muhana, Jaipur for offence u/s 420, 406, 323, 341 IPC. 2. The brief facts of the case are that respondent/complainant Satyanarain Bagoria presented a criminal complaint before Learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate No. 21 Sanganer, Jaipur against petitioner Mohan Lal and co-accused Shanti Devi W/o Mohan Lal, Rajender S/o Mohan Lal, Smt. Pooja W/o Rajender stating therein that: ^^;g fd ifjoknh dh vkjkth d`f"k Hkwfe [kljk uEcj 462( [kljk uEcj 471 yxk;r [kljk uEcj 475] [kljk ua0 481 yxk;r [kljk ua0 486 dqy fdrk 12 dqy jdck 6-84 gS] esa fgLlk 1@8 o [kljk ua0 50@1219] [kljk u0 51 yxk;r [kljk ua0 54 [kljk ua0 58 yxk;r 61] [kljk ua0 68 yxk;r [kljk ua0 70] [kljk ua0 73] [kljk ua0 75 yxk;r [kljk ua0 82] [kljk ua0 86 yxk;r [kljk ua0 93] [kljk ua0 96 yxk;r [kljk ua0 105 dqy fdrk 39 jdck 11-61 gS] esa fgLlk 5575@116100 ,oa [kljk ua0 463 yxk;r [kljk ua0 470] [kljk ua0 476 yxk;r [kljk ua0 480] [kljk ua0 87 dqy fdrk 14 dqy jdck 8-86 gS okds xzke egkflagiqjk mQZ diwjokyky rglhy lkaxkusj] ftyk t;iqj esa fgLlk 1@8 lEiw.kZ dks 45]00]000@& :i;s v{kjs iSarkyhl yk[k :i;s ch?kk ds fglkc ls vfHk;qDr la[;k 1 us ifjoknh dks fodz; dj nh] ftlds lkbZ isVs 5]00]000@& :i;s] 56]00]000@& yk[k :i;s VqdM+ksa esa rFkk fnukad 05-11-2014 dks 81]00]000@& :i;s o fnukad 18-02-2015 dks 20]00]000@& izkIr dj fy;sA bl izdkj vfHk;qDr la[;k 1 us fodz; dh xbZ Hkwfe ds isVs dqy 1]62]00-000@& :i;s udn izkIr dj fy,A ;g fd vfHk;qDr la[;k 1 dks dbZ ckj fuosnu djus ij Hkh vkt fnukad rd uk rks vfHk;qDr la[;k 1 us ifjoknh ds uke ls Hkwfe dk fodz; i= rLnhd djok;k gS vkSj uk gh ifjoknh ds mDr fn, gq, :i;s ifjoknh dks okil ykSVk;s gSaA ,slk djds vfHk;qDrx.k us ifjoknh ds lkFk /kks[kk/kM+h dj ifjoknh dh xk<+h dekbZ ds 1]62]00]000@& :i;s gM+i fy;s rFkk ifjoknh }kjk vfHk;qDrx.k dks fodz; i= djokus ds ckjs esa dgus ij vfHk;qDrx.k la[;k 1 vkSj mldh iRuh vfHk;qDr la[;k 2 o vfHk;qDr la[;k 3 rFkk 4 ifjoknh ds lkFk xkyh&xykSp rFkk ekjihV ij mrk: gks tkrs gSaA vfHk;qDr dk mDr d`R; Hkkjrh; n.M lafgrk dh /kkjk 420] 406] 323] 341 ds rgr n.Muh; vijk/k dh Js.kh esa vkrk gSA ;g fd mDr ?kVuk dh fjiksVZ djokus ds fy, ifjoknh Fkkuk eqgkuk esa x;k rks ogkWa ij ifjoknh dh fjiksVZ ntZ ugha dh rFkk ifjoknh dks U;k;ky; esa dk;Zokgh djus dks dgkA ;g fd mDr d`R; eqyfteku us Fkkuk eqgkuk ds {ks=kf/kdkj esa dkfjr fd;k gS tks Fkkuk eqgkuk ds {ks= esa ?kfVr gksus ds dkj.k mDr ifjokn i= dks lquus dk {ks=kf/kdkj ekuuh; U;k;ky; dks gkfly gSA ;g fd ifjokn i= mfpr U;k; 'kqYd ij is'k gSA vr% ifjokn i= is'kdj fuosnu gS fd ifjokn i= vUrxZr /kkjk 156¼3½ ds rgr okLrs vuqla/kku gsrq Fkkuk eqgkuk fHktok;s tkus dh d`ik djsaA ftlls eqyftekuksa dks mDr d`R; dh ltk fnyok;h tk ldsA** 3. The said complaint was sent for investigation under section 156(3) Cr.P.C. to SHO Muhana by learned Magistrate, on which FIR No. 690/15 for offence under section 420, 406, 323 and 34-I IPC was registered at PS Muhana and Investigation commenced. Matter is still under investigation. 4. Learned counsel for petitioner Sh. Pratap Singh Sirohi submits that from the perusal of FIR no offence is made out against the petitioners therefore the FIR may be quashed and set aside while exercising powers vested in this Court under Section 482 Cr.RC. 5. Leaned Counsel relied on Nageshwar Prasad Singh alias Sinha v. Narayan Singh and another reported in 1999 AIR (SC) 1480. 6. Per Contra Learned Counsel for respondent complainant Sh. JR Choudhary submits that the Aunty (Bua) of petitioner has filed Civil Suit in regard to the property in question against the petitioner, therefore, it is apparent that petitioner committed cheating with the complainant. He submits that after receiving huge amount in the tune of Rs. 1 crore 62 lakh petitioner did not execute the sale deed of the disputed land in favour of the respondent/complainant nor he returned the sale amount. Therefore offence under section 420 and 406 IPC is clearly made out. 7. Learned Public Prosecutor Sh. R.R. Baisla submitted factual report of the matter and submitted that offence under section 420 and 406 IPC is made out. 8. Learned Counsel for petitioner Sh. Pratap Singh Sirohi submits that respondent/complainant has filed civil suit against the petitioner for Specific Performance of Contract and from the perusal of FIR also it reveals that the dispute is regarding Specific Performance of Contract only which is of civil nature. 9. I have considered the submissions made at Bar and perused the available record. 10. From the perusal of FIR it reveals that allegations levelled by the respondent/complainant against the petitioner is that after receiving sale amount petitioner failed to execute sale deed. The another allegation is : ^^vfHk;qDrx.k dks fodz; i= djokus ds ckjs esa dgus ij vfHk;qDr la[;k 1 vkSj mldh iRuh vfHk;qDr la[;k 2 o vfHk;qDr la[;k 3 rFkk 4 ifjoknh ds lkFk xkyh xykSp rFkk ekjihV ij mrk: gks tkrs gSaA** 11. The another allegation is : ^^vfHk;qDrx.k dks fodz; i= djokus ds ckjs esa dgus ij vfHk;qDr la[;k 1 vkSj mldh iRuh vfHk;qDr la[;k 2 o vfHk;qDr la[;k 3 rFkk 4 ifjoknh ds lkFk xkyh xykSp rFkk ekjihV ij mrk: gks tkrs gSaA** 11. In the matter of Nageshwar Prasad alias Sinha v. Narayan Singh and another (supra) of Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that:- "Section 415 of the Indian Penal Code which defines the offence of cheating illustrates it well in providing statutory illustrations. Illustration (g) is relevant for our purpose which reads as follows : "A intentionally deceives Z into a belief that A means to deliver to Z a certain quantity of indigo plant which he does not intend to deliver, and thereby dishonestly induces Z to advance money upon the faith of such delivery, A cheats; but if A, at the time of obtaining the money, intends to deliver the indigo plant, and afterwards breaks his contract and does not deliver it, he does not cheat, but is liable only to a civil action for breach of contract." The latter part thereof illustrates that at the time when agreement for sale was executed, it could have in no event been termed dishonest so as to hold that the complainants were cheated of the earnest money, which they passed to the appellant as part-consideration, when possession of the total land involved in the bargain was passed over to the complainant-respondents, and which remains in their possession. Now, it is left to imagine who would be interested in delaying the matter in completing the bargain when admittedly the complainants have not performed their part in making full payment. The matter is therefore before the civil court in this respect. The liability, if any, arising by the breach thereof is civil in nature and not criminal. We therefore, allow, this appeal, and set aside not only the impugned orders of the High Court, but quash the proceedings too which are pending before the Magistrate. The complainant-respondents shall pay compensatory costs to the appellant for these vexatious proceedings which we assess at Rs. 10,000 which the respondents are directed to pay to the appellant within six weeks from today." 12. The complainant-respondents shall pay compensatory costs to the appellant for these vexatious proceedings which we assess at Rs. 10,000 which the respondents are directed to pay to the appellant within six weeks from today." 12. In the case in hand also the remaining sale amount has also not been paid by the complainant to petitioner and the payment mentioned in FIR is also disputed by the petitioner/accused and respondent/complainant had already filed Civil Suit for Specific Performance of Contract before lodging FIR which is pending. There is no allegation of dishonest intention of petitioner at the time of agreement. The ingredients of cheating and breach of trust are missing. Therefore, the dispute regarding payment and Specific Performance of Contract shall be decided in the Civil suit. 13. In the matter of State of Haryana & Ors. v. Ch. Bhajan Lal & Ors. [1992 Suppl. (1) SCC 335] Hon'ble Supreme Court framed Seven grounds for quashing of FIR which are as follows : 1. Where the allegations made in the First Information Report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima-facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused. 2. Where the allegations in the First Information Report and other materials, if any, accompanying the F.I.R. do not disclose a cognisable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers Under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code. 3. Where the un-controverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused. 4. Where, the allegations in the F.I.R. do not constitute a cognisable offence but constitute only a non-cognisable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated Under Section 155(2) of the Code. 5. Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. 6. 5. Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. 6. Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party. 7. Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge." 14. In the matter in hand from the perusal of the present FIR the basic ingredients of cheating and breach of trust, wrongful restraint and causing simple hurt are missing against the petitioner and the dispute is of civil nature and FIR itself does not disclose any offence. 15. Therefore, this petition is allowed and FIR No. 690/15 registered at PS Muhana, Jaipur under section 420, 406, 323 and 341 IPC is quashed and set aside. However it is made clear that this order shall not effect the proceedings of Civil suit pending before Civil Court.