Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 107 (RAJ)

Ram Chandra S/o Ram Kishan v. State of Rajasthan

2022-01-12

VIJAY BISHNOI

body2022
JUDGMENT : Vijay Bishnoi, J. 1. Since the subject matter of SBCRLMP No. 5701/2021 is similar to that of SBCRLMP Nos. 3125/2017, 1626/2019, 1628/2019 and 4841/2021, the record of SBCRLMP No. 5701/2021 was called and the said misc. petition is being decided by this common order along with the above referred criminal misc. petitions. 2. The following criminal misc. petitions under section 482 Cr.P.C. have been filed by the petitioners for quashing the following FIRs; SBCRLMP No. FIR No. & Date Police Station & District for the offences punishable u/S 3125/2017 218/20170 4.09.2017 Sri Dungargarh, District Bikaner 420 and 406 IPC 1626/2019 1628/2019 91/2019 13.03.2019 Rawatsar, District Hanumangarh 420, 406 and 120-B IPC 4841/2021 426/2021 01.09.2021 Rawatsar, District Hanumangarh 420, 406 and 506 IPC 3. Whereas, SBCRLMP No. 5701/2021 has been filed by petitioner for issuing directions to the police authorities to conduct fair and impartial investigation into the FIR No. 426/2021 dated 01.09.2021 of Police Station Rawatsar, District Hanumangarh for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 406 and 506 IPC. 4. Brief facts relevant and essential for disposal of these criminal misc. petitions are noted herein below:- SBCRLMP No. 3125/2017 5. Complainant/Respondent No. 2 - Kana Ram submitted a report at Police Station Shridungargarh, District Bikaner alleging, inter alia, therein that on an oral agreement between him and petitioners Ramchandra and Sushil Kumar, who happened to be the partners of partnership firm viz. M/s. Santpal Sushil Kumar Oil Mills, Rawatsar, Hanumangarh in the presence of some other responsible and prestigious persons, the complainant/respondent No. 2 agreed to sell groundnuts to the petitioners worth Rs. 3 Crore and the petitioners promised him that the payment would be made on delivery of goods. In pursuance thereof, complainant/respondent No. 2 supplied groundnuts worth Rs. 2,84,18,661/- to the petitioners but received partial payment of Rs. 1,39,50,000/- only on different dates that too in installments through RTGS and some groundnuts worth Rs. 24,35,806/- was also returned and, thus, he received a sum of Rs. 1,63,85,806/- (Rs. 1,39,50,000/- + Rs. 24,35,806/-) in respect of the above supplied goods. 6. After receiving the aforementioned amount, the total amount outstanding from the petitioners was Rs. 1,23,88,791/- (Rs. 1,20,32,855/- for goods supplied + Rs. 3,55,936/- for Bardana). The complainant/respondent No. 2 allegedly demanded the due amount from the petitioners on several occasions but they didn't pay the same. 7. 1,39,50,000/- + Rs. 24,35,806/-) in respect of the above supplied goods. 6. After receiving the aforementioned amount, the total amount outstanding from the petitioners was Rs. 1,23,88,791/- (Rs. 1,20,32,855/- for goods supplied + Rs. 3,55,936/- for Bardana). The complainant/respondent No. 2 allegedly demanded the due amount from the petitioners on several occasions but they didn't pay the same. 7. It is alleged that on 21.08.2017, in the presence of the complainant/respondent No. 2 and other responsible persons, the petitioners refused to pay the due amount as well as groundnuts stating that it is their way to cheat the people by making payment in part and misappropriating the remaining due amount and the complainant/respondent No. 2 can do whatever he wants. Thus, the petitioners, with the intention to gain illegal profit, allegedly misappropriated the amount of Rs. 1,23,88,791/- (Rs. 1,20,32,855/- for goods supplied + Rs. 3,55,936/- for Bardana), which caused loss to the complainant/respondent No. 2. 8. On the basis of the said information, FIR No. 218/2017 was registered at Police Station Sridungargarh, District Bikaner for the offences punishable under Sections 420 and 406 IPC and investigation was commenced. SBCRLMP Nos. 1626/2019 & 1628/2019 9. Complainant/Respondent No. 2 - Hardutt Singh submitted a report at Police Station Rawatsar, District Hanumangarh, alleging, inter alia, therein that the complainant/respondent No. 2 used to do business with the petitioners and on account of that several business transactions were carried out between them, however, a sum of Rs. 18,47,749/- became due from the petitioners. It is further alleged that upon demanding the said due amount by the complainant/respondent No. 2, the petitioners told him that if they receive Rs. 49,50,000/-, they could get their bank account limit increased and would be able to repay his all due amount with the interest. It is also alleged that relying upon the statement of the petitioners, the complainant/respondent No. 2 gave Rs. 49,50,000/- to them through RTGS and thus the total amount of Rs. 67,97,749/- was due from them. The complainant/respondent No. 2 demanded the due amount from the petitioners on several occasions but no heed was paid to the same and finally they refused to pay the due amount. 10. The complainant/respondent No. 2 further alleged that from the very beginning, the petitioners had the dishonest and fraudulent intention to cheat, defraud and cause loss to him and to gain illegal profit, misappropriated the amount of Rs. 10. The complainant/respondent No. 2 further alleged that from the very beginning, the petitioners had the dishonest and fraudulent intention to cheat, defraud and cause loss to him and to gain illegal profit, misappropriated the amount of Rs. 67,97,749/-. 11. On the basis of the said report, FIR No. 91/2019 came to be registered at Police Station Rawatsar, District Hanumangarh for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 406 and 120-B IPC and investigation was commenced. SBCRLMP Nos. 4841/2021 & 5701/2021 12. Complainant/Respondent No. 2 - Suresh Chandra submitted a report at Police Station Rawatsar, District Hanumangarh alleging, inter alia, therein that he is an edible oil trader and sole proprietor of a firm viz. M/s. P.C. Traders, Agra. On 28.08.2021, he entered into an agreement through a broker with the mill of the petitioners to purchase 32 tons mustard oil. According to the said agreement and as stated by the petitioners, the complainant/respondent No. 2 sent Rs. 50 lac and a tanker bearing No. UP-80-ET-4282 through his driver to purchase and bring 32 tons of mustard oil from the mill of the petitioners. As per the instructions of the complainant/respondent No. 2, his driver reached the mill of the petitioners on 29.08.2021 with tanker and gave Rs. 50 lac to them and asked them to fill 32 tons of mustard oil in the tanker, however, they filled only 20 tons of mustard oil and said that remaining oil would be filled on the next day at 10:00 A.M., however, on the next day, they did not fill the remaining oil on the ground that it was a holiday. Thereafter on 31.08.2021, petitioners came with four to five other persons and started taking oil out from the tanker through a pipe and when the driver of the complainant/respondent No. 2 objected them, they threatened him. It is alleged that after emptying the tanker, the petitioners beat up the driver of the complainant/respondent No. 2 and drove him out of their mill and when he asked for returning the amount of Rs. 50 lac, they said that they would not return any amount, then he informed about the said incident to the complainant/respondent No. 2 on telephone. 13. 50 lac, they said that they would not return any amount, then he informed about the said incident to the complainant/respondent No. 2 on telephone. 13. On the next day, when the complainant/respondent No. 2 along with the broker reached the mill of the petitioners and asked them either to give oil or return the amount then they replied and said that they would not give anything to him and if he tries to come back again to their mill, he would be implicated in the false case of theft. Thus, the petitioners allegedly, made a false promise to supply 32 tons of mustard oil and grabbed Rs. 50 lac. 14. On the basis of the aforesaid information, FIR No. 426/2021 was registered at Police Station Rawatsar, District Hanumangarh for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 406 and 506 IPC and investigation was commenced. 15. Assailing the impugned FIRs, learned counsel for the petitioners have argued that the registration of the impugned FIRs against the petitioners at the instance of the complainants is nothing but an abuse of process of law. It is submitted that from the contents of the impugned FIRs, it is more than clear that the petitioners and the complainants were having business relation since long and during the course of business transactions, the complainants supplied certain items to the petitioners and in lieu thereof the petitioners also made payments to the complainants from time to time. It is submitted that during those business transactions, if some amount is due against the petitioners, it cannot be said that they have committed the offences as alleged in the complaint. 16. Learned counsel for the petitioners have submitted that the facts mentioned in the complaint of making payment on the part of the petitioners from time to time in lieu of goods received, itself is sufficient to assume that the petitioners had no intention to cheat the complainants since initiation of the business transactions. It is also submitted that due to some financial constraints, may be the petitioners have failed to make payment of the received goods within time but this fact itself is not sufficient to conclude that the petitioners have committed cheating with the complainants. 17. It is also submitted that due to some financial constraints, may be the petitioners have failed to make payment of the received goods within time but this fact itself is not sufficient to conclude that the petitioners have committed cheating with the complainants. 17. Learned counsel for the petitioners have submitted that as a matter of fact the disputes between the petitioners and the complainants are predominantly of civil nature which gave the color of the criminal prosecution. Learned counsel for the petitioners have, therefore, argued that when the disputes between the parties are purely of civil nature, the initiation of criminal proceedings against one of the party is nothing but an abuse of process of law. 18. In support of the above contentions, learned counsel for the petitioners have placed reliance on the decisions rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Paramjeet Batra v. State of Uttarakhand & Ors. (Criminal Appeal No. 2069/2012) reported in 2013 Cr.L.R. (SC) 67; Satishchandra Ratanlal Shah v. State of Gujarat & Anr. (Criminal Appeal No. 9/2019) reported in AIR 2019 SC 1538 and the decisions rendered by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in Anil Dudha Bhai Kaneria & Ors. v. State of Rajasthan Thro' P.P. & Anr. (S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No. 1910/2016) decided on 17.05.2017 reported in 2017(3) Cr.L.R. (Raj.) 1373; Amit Kumar Choudhary v. State of Rajasthan & Anr. (S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No. 3278/2016) decided on 06.07.2017 and Smt. Shanta Bai & Ors. v. State of Rajasthan & Anr. (S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No. 1391/2016) decided on 17.07.2017. 19. Learned counsel for the petitioners have, therefore, prayed that the impugned FIRs as well as any proceedings in pursuance to the said FIRs may kindly be quashed. 20. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor as well as learned counsel for the complainants have vehemently opposed the prayer made in these criminal misc. petitions and argued that simply because the disputes between the parties are having some element of civil nature, it cannot prohibit the aggrieved parties to initiate criminal prosecution against the accused persons when the complaint filed against them reveals that the accused persons were having fraudulent and dishonest intention to cheat the complainants even at the time of start of business transactions in between them. 21. 21. Learned Public Prosecutor as well as learned counsel for the complainants have further argued that even if the complaint reveals a commercial transaction and money transaction between the parties but that is hardly a reason for holding that the offence of cheating would elude from such a transaction. It is also submitted that many times, the offence of cheating is committed in the course of commercial transactions. It is further argued that the law in this respect is well settled that when the contents of the complaint disclose the commission of an offence then the said FIR/complaint cannot be quashed. 22. In support of the above contentions, learned Public Prosecutor as well as learned counsel for the complainants have placed reliance on the decision rendered by Hon'ble Apex Court in Lakshman (Dr.) v. State of Karnataka & Ors. reported in 2019 (Suppl.) Cr.L.R. (SC) 18. 23. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record as well as the impugned FIRs. 24. The law in respect of quashing the FIR/complaint while exercising power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is well settled. The Hon'ble Apex Court in State of Haryana & Ors. v. Bhajan Lal & Ors. reported in 1992 SCC (Cri.) 426 and Rupan Deol Bajaj (Mrs) & Anr. v. Kanwar Pal Singh Gill & Anr. reported in 1995 SCC (Cri.) 1059 and in the catena of decisions has laid down certain principles, wherein a criminal FIR/complaint can be quashed by the High Court while exercising power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. if from bare reading of the FIR/complaint, no case is made out. 25. The said principles are reiterated here under:- "(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 cognizable 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. (2) Where the allegations in the First Information Report and other materials, if any, accompanying the F.I.R. do not disclose a cognizable 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 uncontroverted 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 cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable 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) 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." 26. Though, the above principles laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court are illustrative and not exhaustible but throw light on the eventualities, which are required to be taken into consideration, while exercising inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. in the case of quashing of FIRs/complainants. 27. After carefully scrutinizing the impugned FIRs/complaints, I am of the view that it cannot be said that the FIRs/complaints do not disclose the commission of an offence, rather the contents of the FIRs/complaints reveal that the ingredients of the offences under Sections 406 and 420 IPC are made out. 28. 27. After carefully scrutinizing the impugned FIRs/complaints, I am of the view that it cannot be said that the FIRs/complaints do not disclose the commission of an offence, rather the contents of the FIRs/complaints reveal that the ingredients of the offences under Sections 406 and 420 IPC are made out. 28. It is a different thing that whether the allegations in the FIRs/complaints are otherwise correct or not, as the same has to be decided on the basis of the evidence to be led by the parties before the competent criminal court. It is well settled that in both the criminal and civil law, remedy can be availed simultaneously as both are not mutually exclusive but clearly extensive and essentially different in there contents and question. 29. The Hon'ble Apex Court in a recent decision dated 10.03.2021 rendered in Priti Saraf & Anr. v. State of NCT of Delhi & Anr. (Criminal Appeal No. 296/2021) reported in AIR 2021 SC 1531 has held as under:- "33. We have perused the pleadings of the parties, the complaint/FIR/charge-sheet and orders of the Courts below and have taken into consideration the material on record. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, we are satisfied that the issue involved in the matter under consideration is not a case in which the criminal trial should have been short-circuited. The High Court was not justified in quashing the criminal proceedings in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction. The High Court has primarily adverted on two circumstances, (i) that it was a case of termination of agreement to sell on account of an alleged breach of the contract and (ii) the fact that the arbitral proceedings have been initiated at the instance of the appellants. Both the alleged circumstances noticed by the High Court, in our view, are unsustainable in law. The facts narrated in the present complaint/FIR/charge-sheet indeed reveal the commercial transaction but that is hardly a reason for holding that the offence of cheating would elude from such transaction. In fact, many a times, offence of cheating is committed in the course of commercial transactions and the illustrations have been set out under Sections 415, 418 and 420 IPC. Similar observations have been made by this Court in Trisuns Chemical Industry V. Rajesh Agarwal and Ors. (supra):- "9. In fact, many a times, offence of cheating is committed in the course of commercial transactions and the illustrations have been set out under Sections 415, 418 and 420 IPC. Similar observations have been made by this Court in Trisuns Chemical Industry V. Rajesh Agarwal and Ors. (supra):- "9. We are unable to appreciate the reasoning that the provision incorporated in the agreement for referring the disputes to arbitration is an effective substitute for a criminal prosecution when the disputed act is an offence. Arbitration is a remedy for affording reliefs to the party affected by breach of the agreement but the arbitrator cannot conduct a trial of any act which amounted to an offence albeit the same act may be connected with the discharge of any function under the agreement. Hence, those are not good reasons for the High Court to axe down the complaint at the threshold itself. The investigating agency should have had the freedom to go into the whole gamut of the allegations and to reach a conclusion of its own. Pre-emption of such investigation would be justified only in very extreme cases as indicated in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal (1992 Supp (1) SCC 335)" (emphasis supplied) 30. There is no quarrel about the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court as well as the Coordinate Benches of this Court in the above mentioned judgments relied by learned counsel for the petitioners but as observed earlier merely civil/commercial transaction between the parties is hardly a reason to hold that criminal prosecution cannot be launched when the FIR/complaint reveals that a case for commission of offence is made out. 31. Apart from the above facts and circumstances, one thing which is bothering the Court, is the conduct of the petitioners. Multiple FIRs have been lodged against the petitioners in around four years by the different businessmen levelling similar types of allegations that the petitioners asked them to supply some goods with the assurance that payment would be made to them in due course of time, however, part payments were made but thereafter the petitioners refused to make payment of the due amount. Such conduct of the petitioners itself deprives them to seek indulgence form this Court in its extraordinary jurisdiction as the facts and circumstances of the case lead to an impression that the petitioners are in habit of doing such activities and for this reason also the challenge of the petitioners to the impugned FIRs is without any basis. 32. In view of the above discussions, I don't find any merit in these criminal misc. petitions and the same are, therefore, dismissed. 33. Stay petitions also stand dismissed.