Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 1012 (HP)

JAGDISH RAM v. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

2018-05-29

CHANDER BHUSAN BAROWALIA

body2018
JUDGMENT : CHANDER BHUSAN BAROWALIA, J. 1. The present petition, under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter to be called as "the Code"), has been maintained by the petitioner, for quashing of F.I.R. No. 69/10, dated 23.06.2010, under Sections 406 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code, registered at Police Station Bhawarna, District Kangra, H.P. alongwith consequent proceedings arising out of the said F.I.R., pending before the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Palampur, District Kangra, H.P. 2. The facts necessary for adjudication of the present petition are that the residents of Village Dagera made allegations against the petitioner that they have sold their 761 Khair trees to the petitioner, who is a contractor, which were converted into Khair wood and sold to Priya Katha Udhyog main Chintpurni, however the petitioner has not made the payment of Rs. 7,00,000/- of said trees, to the villagers. On the basis of which, F.I.R. No. 90/10, dated 23.06.2010, under Sections 406 and 420 IPC was registered against the petitioner. Learned trial Court on 25.04.2016, framed the charge against the petitioner. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that even if the entire facts, which have come on record are taken into consideration, no offence is made out against the petitioner and the continuation of trial against him, is an abuse of the process of law. On the other hand, learned Additional Advocate General has argued that the learned Court below has considered the material, which was before the Court and even framed the charge against the petitioner, so it cannot be said at this moment that there is no case against the petitioner. He has further argued that there is sufficient material on record to proceed against the petitioner, so the present petition may be dismissed. In rebuttal, learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance upon the judgment rendered by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in Arjun Kalia vs. Ashok Kumar and another's Case (Cr. MMO No. 186 of 2014) and prayed that present petition may be allowed and F.I.R. No. 69/10, dated 23.06.2010, under Sections 406 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code alongwith all consequent proceedings arising out of the same, may be quashed. 4. To appreciate the arguments of learned counsel for the parties, this Court has gone through the records in detail. 5. 4. To appreciate the arguments of learned counsel for the parties, this Court has gone through the records in detail. 5. The charge framed by the learned Court below reads as under: "In case: State Versus Jagdish Ram Charge I, Amit Mandyal, Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Palampur do hereby, charge you accused as under:- That in the year 2010, you accused dishonestly induced Leela Devi, Sahib Singh, Dharamvir, Partap Chand, Dhian Chand, Parmodh Singh, Joginder Singh, Sanjay Kumar, Ranbir Singh, Parkash Chand, Man Chand, Udham Singh, Shammi Kappor, Om Parkash, Surender Kumar, Parsinda Ram, Hoshiar Singh, Bidhi Chand, Bachittar Singh and Partap Singh to deliver their khair trees to you at place Dagera, Tehsil Palampur and had cut and removed khair trees from the lands of persons aforesaid and thereafter did not pay price of khair trees amounting to Rs. 27, 025/-, Rs. 28, 000/-, Rs. 14, 600/-, Rs. 9800/-, Rs. 4250/-, Rs. 6,000/-, Rs. 1250/-, Rs. 2300/-, Rs. 3350/-, Rs. 4500/-, Rs. 57, 400/-, Rs. 3000/-, Rs. 95, 550/-, Rs. 5100/-, Rs. 40, 850/-, Rs. 14, 000/-, Rs. 6250/-, Rs. 50, 200/-, Rs. 33850/- and Rs. 47, 900/- respectively to them and thereby committed an offence of cheating punishable under Section 420 of Indian Penal Code and within my cognizance. And, I hereby, direct that you be tried by this court on the aforesaid offences." x xx x xx x xx It appears that while framing the charge, the learned Court below has considered the material aspects of the case. Now, while exercising the powers under Section 482 of the Code, which as per the learned counsel for the petitioner are wide enough to even quash the entire proceedings, including the charge. While exercising such powers, this Court has to take into consideration the fact that if no case is made out against the petitioner after going through the records, the proceedings can be or required to be quashed. However, in this case, firstly the petitioner has argued on the charge in the learned Court below, but even the learned Court below has come to the conclusion with regard to the fact that the charge is required to be framed. Meaning thereby, that there was prima facie case against the petitioner to frame charge. Now this fact has also required to be re-appreciated while considering the factum of exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code. 6. Meaning thereby, that there was prima facie case against the petitioner to frame charge. Now this fact has also required to be re-appreciated while considering the factum of exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code. 6. This Court prima facie finds it clear that the petitioner has cut 761 trees of khair and sold it to Priya Katha Udhyog Main Chintpurni, but he has not paid Rs. 7,00, 000/- to the land owners and his intention was to take away the khair trees, without paying an amount. Even after selling the trees to the said firm, he has not paid the amount to the land owners. The non-payment of the amount to the land owners even after selling the trees to the said firm, shows that the intention of the petitioner was to deceive the land owners and dishonestly keep their money with him. 7. A Coordinate Bench of Hon'ble Patna High Court in M/s Maheshwari Oil Mill vs. State of Bihar, (1978) CriLJ 659, has held has under: "8. With regard to the case against the petitioner in respect of the mustard oil and maize, it is obvious that the petitioner has stated certain facts in defence so as to show that there was no offence in respect of those two items. It is well known that in the matter of quashing this Court does not enter into an inquiry of disputed facts, and thereafter hold in favour of the accused. Upon the First Information Report it is not contended that it discloses no offence in respect of those two items. The investigation cannot, therefore, be said to be in respect of allegations which do not disclose any offence. For that reason the investigation by the police into these allegations made, cannot be quashed." 8. A Coordinate Bench of this Hon'ble High Court in Laiq Ram vs. State of H.P., (1990) CriLJ 1350, has held has under: "6. I have gone though the voluminous record of this case. After the registration of this case, the Police has investigated this case to a great extent. The petitioner is not the only accused in the case. There are many others who have processed these applications at different stages. They have also been included as accused. I have gone though the voluminous record of this case. After the registration of this case, the Police has investigated this case to a great extent. The petitioner is not the only accused in the case. There are many others who have processed these applications at different stages. They have also been included as accused. It is not in the interest of the petitioner to extract the evidence against him as, I apprehend, that may not prejudice his defence in the case. However, it cannot be said that there is no case at all against the petitioner. The petitioner has attested many of the disputed applications in issue as President of Gram Panchayat. Now only investigation can reveal the degree of role and the extract culpability of the petitioner in the matter." 9. In view of the above discussion and the law as cited supra, this Court finds that at this stage prima facie case is against the petitioner and there is nothing on record to quash the proceedings against the petitioner after exercising the powers under Section 482 of the Code, which are otherwise required to be exercise sparingly. As far as the judgment cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner is concerned, the same is not applicable to the facts of the present case, as in the present case there is a clear-cut deceitment prima facie on record and no civil proceedings are pending, as was in the case referred hereinabove. 10. The net result of the above discussion is that present petition sans merit, deserves dismissal and is accordingly dismissed. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stands disposed of. Parties through their counsel are directed to appear before the learned trial Court on 25th June, 2018.