Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 2283 (ALL)

ISHRIAQUE AHMAD v. STATE OF U. P.

2018-11-02

SIDDHARTH

body2018
JUDGMENT Hon’ble Siddharth, J.—Heard Sri Mukhtar Alam, learned counsel for the applicants and Sri Vinod Tripathi, learned counsel for the informant. 2. This application has been filed for quashing of the summoning order dated 1.3.2013 passed by the Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division)/Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nazibabad, District- Bijnor in Criminal Case No. 168 of 2009. under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 406, 504, 506, 120-B I.P.C., P.S.- Nazibabad, District- Bijnor. 3. By the aforesaid order the Magistrate has dismissed the discharge application of the accused-applicant under Section 239 Cr.P.C. and has directed the case to be fixed for framing to charges against them under Section 240 Cr.P.C. under Sections 406, 417, 418, 420, 467, 468, 506 and 120-B I.P.C. in Case No. 168 of 2009, Case Crime No. 1882-A of 2007, P.S. - Nazibabad, District- Bijnor. 4. Opposite Party No. 2 made an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. before the Magistrate alleging that he is doing business with his father, Kamruddin, and the applicants are the President and Manager respectively of the Committee of Management of Islamic Fund, which is a banking entity. The opposite party No. 2 opened an account in the Islamic Fund on the assurance of the applicants and deposited Rs. 2,50,000/- on 10.9.2007 and Rs. 9,00,000/- on 28.9.2007 on the counter of the Islamic Fund and there is entry of deposit in his passbook. On 30.9.2007 when the opposite party No. 2, alongwith his father went to withdraw Rs. 5,00,000/-, his withdrawl form was rejected on the ground that there is an inquiry pending regarding 25 accounts wherein same irregularities have been detected and the opposite party No. 2 and his father were directed to come after three days. After three days the applicant No. 2 refused to make payment and thereafter the opposite party No. 2 approached various authorities of the Islamic Fund but his money was not given and he was threatened of dire consequences. The accuseds were trying to embezzle the amounts of the other account holder also and therefore he made such an application. After orders of the learned Magistrate, first information report was registered and evidences were collected by the investigating officer by recording the statements of the witnesses. 5. The accuseds were trying to embezzle the amounts of the other account holder also and therefore he made such an application. After orders of the learned Magistrate, first information report was registered and evidences were collected by the investigating officer by recording the statements of the witnesses. 5. After filling of the application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C by opposite party No. 2, the Secretary of the Islamic Fund lodged a first information report against the opposite party No. 2 and his father, Kamruddin, under Section 420, 467, 468, 471, 406, 506, 120-B I.P.C. which was registered as case Crime No. 1882 of 2007 and in that case the opposite party No. 2 and his father were charge-sheeted and charges were directed to be framed under Section 420/511, 467, 468, 471, 120-B, 506 I.P.C. against the opposite party No. 2 and his father and they filed a revision against the same which was partly allowed by the order dated 22.10.2010 and the order of the Magistrate was modified and charges were directed to be framed under Section 384, 506 I.P.C. against the opposite party No. 2 and his father. 6. Aggrived by the order dated 22.10.2010 passed by the revisional Court, they approached this Court by filling a Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 15613 of 2011 which has been dismissed by this Court by order of date. The aforesaid case is the cross versions of the present case. 7. The learned counsel for the revisionist has submitted that mere refusal on the part of the applicant to permit withdrawl of the amount deposited by the opposite party No. 2 and his father in their account amounts to a civil dispute and they should have instituted civil proceedings for recovery of the amount deposited in the Islamic Fund instead of filling an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. and getting the F.I.R. registered against the applicants. He has submitted that the Apex Court has disapproved the conversion of purely civil dispute into criminal offences. He has relied upon para 8 in the judgment of the case of Mohd. He has submitted that the Apex Court has disapproved the conversion of purely civil dispute into criminal offences. He has relied upon para 8 in the judgment of the case of Mohd. Ibrahim and another v. State of Bihar and another, (2009) 8 SCC 781, as follow : “This Court has time and again drawn attention to the growing tendency of complainants attempting to give the cloak of a criminal offence to matters which are essentially and purely civil in nature, obviously either to apply pressure on the accused, or out of enmity towards the accused, or to subject the accused to harassment. Criminal Courts should ensure that proceedings before it are not used for settling scores or to pressurise parties to settle civil disputes. But at the same, it should be noted that several disputes of a civil nature may also contain the ingredients of criminal offences and if so, will have to be tried as criminal offences, even if they also amount to civil disputes. [See: G. Sagar Suri v. State of U.P. [ 2000 (2) SCC 636 ] and Indian Oil Corporation v. NEPC India Ltd. [ 2006 (6) SCC 736 ]. Let us examine the matter keeping the said principles in mind.” 8. Learned counsel for the opposite party No. 2 has submitted that this case is the cross version of the case which was filed by the applicants against the opposite party No. 2 and his father as Case Crime No. 1888-A of 2007 under Sections 406, 417, 418, 420, 468, 506, 120-B I.P.C. pending before the trial Court as Case No. 98 of 2000. 9. He has submitted that even in the case of Mohd. Ibrahim (Supra) the Apex Court has held in para 8 that where the dispute is of Civil nature, it cannot be treated as criminal offence. 10. After hearing the rival submissions it is clear that in the present case there is not only the allegation of civil nature but also allegations of criminal nature of threatening the opposite party No. 2 and his father of dire the consequences when they went to withdraw the money deposited by them in the Islamic Fund of the applicants. 10. After hearing the rival submissions it is clear that in the present case there is not only the allegation of civil nature but also allegations of criminal nature of threatening the opposite party No. 2 and his father of dire the consequences when they went to withdraw the money deposited by them in the Islamic Fund of the applicants. It is not the case of allegation simplicitor of refusal of the Islamic Fund to permit the opposite party No. 2 and his father to withdraw money from their account due to non-availability of fund, pending of inquiry in the account of the opposite party No. 2 or dispute of not deposited any amount and then claiming with drawl of the same, etc. There were allegations of criminal nature as well which are required to be gone into by the Criminal Court. 11. Therefore the rejection of the discharge allegation of the applicants by the Court below cannot be faulted with. This application is devoid of merits and is accordingly dismissed. 12. The Court below is directed to frame the charges against the accuseds within two months and conclude the trial within the year thereafter. 13. Office is directed to communicate this order to the Court below within ten days.