Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 1713 (RAJ)

Subhash Chand v. State of Rajasthan

2023-09-11

KULDEEP MATHUR

body2023
JUDGMENT : KULDEEP MATHUR, J. 1. The instant criminal miscellaneous petition has been preferred by the petitioner for quashing FIR No. 442/2022 lodged at RS Nohar, District Hanumangarh for the offences under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B IPC and investigation pursuant thereto. 2. As per prosecution, the complainant lodged an FIR dated 08.09.2022 before PS Nohar stating inter alia that the complainant is a literate person, running a simple business. In December, 2012 the accused-petitioner No. 1, who is a distant relative of the complainant, visited the house of the complainant. The accused-petitioner asked the complainant as to how his business was doing, to which the complainant replied that his business is running as per his invested capital. Upon which, the accused-petitioner No. 1 lured the complainant by telling him that in Haryana, if small businessmen wants to expand their businesses, they take loan from banks and no interest is charged on these loans. The accused petitioner No. 1 asked the. complainant to supply copies of identity documents and a photo clicked in front of his shop, in order to fill the application for interest free loan. The accused petitioner No. 1 further told the complainant to come to Sirsa, Haryana after 3-4 days, so as to facilitate opening of a bank account in his name. After 3-4 days, the complainant went to Sirsa where the accused-petitioner No. 1 took him to a bank and got the complainant to sign some documents and also got cheque books issued from the bank. The accused-petitioner No. 1 also got signatures of the complainant on cheque leaves of the cheque book so issued, blank documents and stamp papers and kept the same with him, while assuring the complainant that the loan will be sanctioned in his favour shortly and he will be intimated about the same. 3. After 4-5 months, the complainant inquired about the loan and he was told by the accused-petitioner No. 1 that first installment of the loan will be disbursed shortly and thereafter, for two years, quarterly installments will be disbursed to him but first, he has to visit Gurgaon in relation to loan. The complainant then visited the office situated in Gurgaon, where he was asked to sign some documents and was also told that the first installment of the loan to the tune of Rs. The complainant then visited the office situated in Gurgaon, where he was asked to sign some documents and was also told that the first installment of the loan to the tune of Rs. 25,000/- will be disbursed shortly and quarterly-installments for two years will be disbursed thereafter. The complainant did not receive any of the installment for 12 months whereupon, he inquired about the same from accused-petitioner No. 1, who informed that the loan application had been rejected and whenever a new scheme is launched, he will, help the complainant in securing loan. 4. The complainant received letters dated 10.08.2022 and 12.08.2022 from the Income Tax Department which were shown to the advocate who told the complainant that in the assessment year 2014-2015, an amount of Rs. 1,35,20,620/- was assessed as income tax which was demanded by the Income Tax Department along with interest. The complainant stated that he had never dealt with/seen such huge amount. Upon this, after 3-4 days, the advocate of the complainant told him that he had received information from office of Income Tax Department, Hanumangarh that the bank accounts of the complainant had been opened in Sirsa, Haryana, in which large amounts of money were deposited and withdrawn. 5. The complainant gathered information about the said accounts and from the statements of these accounts, came to know about one ICICI Savings Bank Account Branch at Sirsa with No. XXXXXXXX4002, with customer mobile No. XXXXXX 2135, which allegedly belongs to the accused and one other Current Account with No. XXXXXXX0230, having the mobile number of accused-petitioner No. 1, with customer name as Jay Bharat Traders, New Anaaj Mandi, Sirsa, Haryana. 6. On receiving this information, the complainant contacted accused-petitioner No. 1 and called him to Nohar and reproached him about the transactions in the bank accounts and letters from the Income Tax Department. Thereupon, the accused-petitioner No. 1 told that accused- petitioner Nos. 2 to 4 worked together, who required bank accounts and therefore, had made transactions in the complaint's bank accounts. The accused-petitioner No. 1 assured the complainant that accused-petitioners will get the Income Tax proceedings concluded soon. 7. On 26.08.2022, when the proceeding initiated by the Income Tax Department were not concluded, the complainant contacted accused - petitioner Nos. 2 to 4 worked together, who required bank accounts and therefore, had made transactions in the complaint's bank accounts. The accused-petitioner No. 1 assured the complainant that accused-petitioners will get the Income Tax proceedings concluded soon. 7. On 26.08.2022, when the proceeding initiated by the Income Tax Department were not concluded, the complainant contacted accused - petitioner Nos. 1 to 4, who told the complainant that they are not concerned with the Income Tax proceedings, they only required bank account to make illegal transactions worth crores of rupees and in order to do so, they had cheated the complainant under the garb of getting a loan sanctioned in his favour and opened bank accounts in his name, which were subsequently used by them illegally. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that FIR against the petitioners is nothing but gross abuse of process of law because the present FIR does not disclose commission of any offence whatsoever against the petitioners. Learned counsel submitted that PS Nohar has no territorial jurisdiction to lodge and investigate the impugned FIR as the FIR discloses that the bank accounts in which transactions were made were opened in the name of complainant at Sirsa (Haryana). Learned counsel further submitted that bank accounts have been opened with the documents and the signatures of the complainant himself and for that purpose, he appeared before the concerned bank. Learned counsel submitted that after receiving notice from the Income Tax Department, the complainant has developed a false story against the petitioners that they under the pretext of extending help in securing loan, cheated the complainant. 9. Lastly, learned counsel submitted that even if the contentions of the complainant- respondent No. 2 is accepted to be true, then also no offence of cheating or forgery is made out because as per the allegations, certain transactions in the bank accounts of the complainant have been made which gives rise to a dispute purely of civil nature and does not come within the ambit of Section 415 IPC. Thus, the petitioners have not committed any offence of cheating with complainant-respondent No. 2 and there was no chance to induce the complainant fraudulently or dishonestly to deliver the property, therefore, ingredients of Sections 415 and 420 IPC are not fulfilled and therefore, impugned FIR is liable to be quashed and set aside. 10. Thus, the petitioners have not committed any offence of cheating with complainant-respondent No. 2 and there was no chance to induce the complainant fraudulently or dishonestly to deliver the property, therefore, ingredients of Sections 415 and 420 IPC are not fulfilled and therefore, impugned FIR is liable to be quashed and set aside. 10. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for the complainant vehemently opposed the criminal miscellaneous petition and submitted that this Court vide order dated 18.07.2022 directed the petitioners to appear before Investigating Officer for interrogation on 01.08,2022. However, the petitioners are not cooperating with the investigation. 11. It was submitted that perusal of the FIR reveals that the offences committed are continuing offences as they continued to subsist from the point, the petitioner was first induced by the petitioner in Nohar, in relation to securing loan in Sirsa (Haryana) till fraudulent transactions were made in that account by the accused- petitioners. Learned counsel submitted that PS Nohar is thus having jurisdiction to lodge and investigate the FIR. 12. Learned Public Prosecutor and counsel for the complainant submitted that the accounts opened at Sirsa in the name of the complainant are having mobile numbers of the petitioner No. 1 which is indicative of the fact that he had full knowledge of transactions being made in the accounts. Learned counsel submitted that transactions in the accounts opened in the name of the complainant were made mainly from the Savings Account of petitioner No. 1 and one current account of Jay Bharat Traders having mobile number of the petitioner, which during the course of investigation has been found to be a fake company. 13. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that in the investigation made so far in connection with impugned FIR, cognizable offences under Sections 420, 466, 468, 471 and 120B IPC have been found to be proved against the petitioner No. 1 while investigation qua other petitioners is pending. 14. 13. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that in the investigation made so far in connection with impugned FIR, cognizable offences under Sections 420, 466, 468, 471 and 120B IPC have been found to be proved against the petitioner No. 1 while investigation qua other petitioners is pending. 14. Learned counsel submitted that in the case of State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335, Hon'ble the Apex Court has set out following guidelines for quashing of FIR while exercising inherent powers u/Sec. 482 Cr.P.C. having regard to nature and gravity of the offences: “(a) 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. (b) 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. (c) where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose 265 the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused. (d) where the allegations in the FIR 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. (e) 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 jus conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. (f) 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. (f) 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. (g) 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.” 15. Learned counsel submitted that this case does not fall in any of the exceptions carved out by Hon'ble the Supreme Court for quashing of FIR and therefore, the present miscellaneous petition deserves to be dismissed. 16. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 17. Having considered facts and circumstances of the case, FIR and the case diary, this Court finds that though bank accounts in the name of the complainant-respondent No. 2 were opened in Sirsa but the allegation to induce the complainant to secure bank loan without interest has been levelled against the petitioners when he was in Nohar (Rajasthan). In the considered opinion of this Court, the offences alleged against the petitioners are continuing one and thus, the complainant is well within his rights to lodge an FIR at PS Nohar, Hanumangarh. 18. As per the FIR, this Court also finds that the signatures and documents of the complainant were obtained by dishonestly inducing him that he will be helped by the petitioners in securing interest free loan. Had this inducement not been made in Nohar, the complainant would not have handed over his documents in Nohar or have signed the documents in Sirsa and Gurgaon. Thus, the allegations against the petitioner are not just of civil nature but the offences under Section 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120B IPC have been made out against the petitioners. 19. From the perusal of the case diary, this Court finds that as per the investigation made against the petitioners so far, a cognizable offence is made out against them. It is well settled law that the Court while exercising its powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. cannot decide the correctness or truthfulness of the allegations levelled against accused persons by making a roving enquiry. It is well settled law that the Court while exercising its powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. cannot decide the correctness or truthfulness of the allegations levelled against accused persons by making a roving enquiry. 20. In the result, the petitioners have failed to make out a prima facie case warranting exercise of powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashment of the FIR in question. 21. Accordingly the present criminal miscellaneous petition fails and is hereby dismissed.