Research › Search › Judgment

Gujarat High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 286 (GUJ)

Praqdeep Sabhapati Shukla v. State Of Gujarat

2019-04-01

A.P.THAKER

body2019
JUDGMENT : A.P. THAKER, J. 1. By filing this application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the applicants have prayed to quash and set aside the FIR being I-C.R.No.II/1/2017 dated 2.1.2017 registered with Chikhli Police Station, District-Navsari, under Sections 504, 506 (2), 114 of IPC and also under Sections 33(1) (b), 33 (1)(c) and 34 of the Bombay Money Lenders Act. 2. The short facts of the case are that respondent no.2 herein lodged a complaint before police, wherein it is stated that the complainant is doing the business of transport carting. On 10.11.2014, the complainant was in need of amount to pay installment of his lorry/mini truck bearing registration number MH-20 BT-3801, which is in the name of Master of the complainant. He, therefore, went to the applicants herein, who agreed to give the amount at 10% interest. The applicants herein asked for original RC book and four blank cheques as security for the loan. As the complainant was in hard times, he took forty five thousand, after deduction of Rs.5,000/- towards interest, after signing on a blank paper. The complainant had paid an amount of Rs.1,15,000/- as interest of 23 months. After some time, the complainant arranged for an amount of Rs.50,000/- and went to pay it to the accused and asked them to returned original RC book as well as four blank cheques. The accused denied to hand it over to the complainant and asked the complainant to give Rs.50,000/- more, and threatened him that if he fails to give the amount to the accused, the accused would get the RC book transferred in their name and also deposit the cheque in the bank by filling an amount of Rs.5 Lacs. It is alleged that the complainant has already paid Rs.50,000/- and Rs.1,15,000/- towards interest, however, the accused are demanding Rs.50,000/- more. With these allegations, complaint is filed against the accused persons. 3. Ms.Nimisha Sharma, learned advocate for the applicants submitted that the complaint is filed with false allegations. She submitted that the applicant and the complainant are good friends and in the year 2014, as the complainant was in need of money, he asked for an amount of Rs.80,000/- from the applicants. Due to friendship, applicant no.1 gave him Rs.30,000/-. 3. Ms.Nimisha Sharma, learned advocate for the applicants submitted that the complaint is filed with false allegations. She submitted that the applicant and the complainant are good friends and in the year 2014, as the complainant was in need of money, he asked for an amount of Rs.80,000/- from the applicants. Due to friendship, applicant no.1 gave him Rs.30,000/-. After a month, respondent no.2 against demanded Rs.50,000/- Since the complainant started crying in front of him, out of sympathy, applicant no.1 arranged for Rs.50,000/- from his friend and gave it to the complainant. Since this amount was taken from a friend, applicant no.1 asked the complainant to give cheque for the total amount of Rs.80,000/-. Since the complainant did not pay the amount back for two and a half years, applicant asked him to pay back the amount or he would deposit the cheque in the bank. Since the complainant was not having enough amount in his account, with a view to save himself from any proceedings under the Negotiable Instruments Act, false complaint is filed against the present applicants. She further submitted that applicants no.2 and 3 do not even know the complainant and they have been falsely implicated. She further submitted that the applicants are not doing business of money lending, however, they are doing small business of installation of Tata Sky. She submitted that the impugned complaint is nothing but an abuse of process of law, as the complainant has filed a false complaint against the present applicants. 4. On the other hand, Ms.Monali Bhatt, learned APP appearing for the respondent-State has supported the impugned complaint. She submitted that prima facie material has been found against the present applicants and a charge sheet is already filed in the present case against the applicants. She further submitted that, at this stage, this Court may not interfere with the impugned proceedings. In view of above, she prayed to reject the present application. 5. Heard learned advocates for the parties and perused the material available on record. 6. It is settled law that for considering the petition under Section 482 of the Code, it is necessary to consider as to whether the allegations in the complaint prima facie make out a case or not and the Court is not to scrutinies the allegations for the purpose of deciding whether such allegations are likely to be upheld in trial. It is settled law that for considering the petition under Section 482 of the Code, it is necessary to consider as to whether the allegations in the complaint prima facie make out a case or not and the Court is not to scrutinies the allegations for the purpose of deciding whether such allegations are likely to be upheld in trial. It is also well settled that though the High Court possesses inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code, these powers are meant to do real and substantial justice, for the administration of which alone it exists or to prevent abuse of the process of the court. The Supreme Court, time and again, has observed that extraordinary power should be exercised sparingly and with great care and caution. The High Court would be justified in exercising the said power when it is imperative to exercise the same in order to prevent injustice. 7. The High Court, in the exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, is required to examine whether the averments in the complaint constitute the ingredients necessary for an offence alleged under the Penal Code. If the averments taken on their face do not constitute the ingredients necessary for the offence, the criminal proceedings may be quashed under Section 482. A criminal proceeding can be quashed where the allegations made in the complaint do not disclose the commission of an offence under the Penal Code. The complaint must be examined as a whole, without evaluating the merits of the allegations. Though the law does not require that the complaint reproduce the legal ingredients of the offence verbatim, the complaint must contain the basic facts necessary for making out an offence under the Penal Code. 8. A court exercising its inherent jurisdiction must examine if on their face, the averments made in the complaint constitute the ingredients necessary for the offence. 9. Considering the prosecution case, it appears that the allegations against the accused are for the offences punishable under Sections 504, 506 (2), 114 of IPC and also under Sections 33(1)(b), 33 (1)(c) and 34 of the Bombay Money Lenders Act. 9. Considering the prosecution case, it appears that the allegations against the accused are for the offences punishable under Sections 504, 506 (2), 114 of IPC and also under Sections 33(1)(b), 33 (1)(c) and 34 of the Bombay Money Lenders Act. The allegations against the accused are that the complainant, in the time of need, borrowed an amount of Rs.50,000/- from the accused and against such amount, the complainant has already paid an amount of Rs.50,000/- plus Rs.1,15,000/- as interest of 23 months. However, when the complainant asked the accused to returned original RC book as well as four blank cheques, the accused denied to hand it over to the complainant and asked the complainant to give Rs.50,000/- more, and threatened him that if he fails to give the amount to the accused, the accused would get the RC book transferred in their name and also deposit the cheque in the bank by filling an amount of Rs.5 Lacs. Such allegations have been investigated and a charge sheet is already filed against the accused persons. On the other hand, the accused have alleged that since the complainant is not willing to pay the amount which was borrowed by him, he has filed present complaint to save himself from the proceedings under Negotiable Instruments Act. From the record it is found that considering the nature of allegations and the fact about monetary transaction having taken place between the parties and that the charge sheet is already filed against the present applicants after investigation, this Court do not find this to be a fit case to exercise its inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code for quashing the proceedings. 10. In view of above discussion, present application is rejected. Rule is discharged.