Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 606 (RAJ)

Khetmal v. State of Rajasthan

2023-02-24

ASHOK KUMAR JAIN

body2023
ORDER : Mr. Ashok Kumar Jain, J. - The present Misc. Petition has been preferred under Section 482 Cr.P.C. by the petitioner for quashing of the FIR No.269/2018 registered at the Police Station Kotwali, District Pali for the offences under Sections 420, 406, 467, 468 and 471 of the IPC. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that language of FIR itself indicates that Rs.2 lacs was borrowed by the petitioner from the respondent on certain rate of interest and when he asked to repay the same, the petitioner refused and denied the alleged of transaction. He submitted that on face of it, this is dispute of civil nature and criminal proceedings in such case is not permissible. He further submitted that just to extract money by entangling the present petitioner in criminal proceedings is nothing but an abuse of process of law. He further submitted that prima facie no case under Sections 420, 406, 467, 468 and 471 of the IPC is made out against the petitioner. He further submitted that after submission of final report before the court concerned, the same was sent for re-investigation and now again petitioner is forced to join the investigation. He further submitted that a civil suit has already been filed to recover the aforesaid debt, which is pending for adjudication thus, the criminal proceeding is just an abuse of process of law, therefore, by way of filing petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., petitioner has made a prayer for quashing of the criminal proceedings. 3. Aforesaid contentions were opposed by the learned Public Prosecutor as well as learned counsel for the complainant-respondent No.2. Learned counsel for the respondent No.2 submitted that when a notice of demand was issued and served upon the petitioner then the petitioner not only denied the transaction but also retracted the execution of 'rukka/note'. He further submitted that the present petitioner has not only denied alleged transaction but also the documentary evidence as well, which amounts to causing wrongful loss to respondent-complainant with wrongful gain and misappropriation of funds by the petitioner. He further submitted that if a civil suit is pending even then a criminal case can be registered and defendant of civil suit can be tried as an accused in any criminal case. He further submitted that no case for quashing of criminal proceedings is made out as prayed by the petitioner. 4. He further submitted that if a civil suit is pending even then a criminal case can be registered and defendant of civil suit can be tried as an accused in any criminal case. He further submitted that no case for quashing of criminal proceedings is made out as prayed by the petitioner. 4. Heard learned counsel for petitioner, learned Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for respondent No.2. Perused the material available on record. 5. Perusal of the report available on record indicates that respondent-complainant filed a complaint before the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate and after the order under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C., a case was registered by the police station Kotwali, District Pali. After investigation, the matter was found to be of civil nature and Final Report was submitted by the police before the court concerned but the said Final Report was sent for re-investigation and for examination of signature on Rukka/note by the Forensic Science Laboratory. Thereafter, the police called the present petitioner for production of documents under Section 91 Cr.P.C. but petitioner did not cooperated in the investigation and he had not produced any documents. 6. On bare look at the allegation made in the FIR reveals that both the parties were carrying on a business and on the date specifically mentioned in the complaint, certain amount was taken as loan on specified rate of interest for a term fixed therein. It was further revealed that after receiving the loan amount from complainant-respondent, a rukka/note or a promissory note, whatsoever it may be, the loan agreement was allegedly executed by the petitioner. The facts narrated in the complaint filed before the learned trial Court indicated that it was a case of pure money transaction in ordinary course of nature between respondent No.2 and the petitioner. After non-payment of the loan amount, a demand notice was served upon the petitioner which was denied by him, on which, a criminal complaint was filed. Moreover, in reply to the notice, petitioner claimed the loan agreement to be forged and fabricated and he denied his signature on it. 7. After non-payment of the loan amount, a demand notice was served upon the petitioner which was denied by him, on which, a criminal complaint was filed. Moreover, in reply to the notice, petitioner claimed the loan agreement to be forged and fabricated and he denied his signature on it. 7. May it be the case as stated herein above, but on perusal of the facts of the case and record it is revealed that it was purely a business transaction and whenever in a business transaction any agreement is executed and in case of denial of any transaction, a civil cause of action is the only remedy available before the party claiming under the agreement. But that party for sake of convenience cannot convert civil cause into a criminal cause of action. Similarly, if execution of any document is denied with allegation of falsification or on account of forgery and fabrication, even then a commercial transaction cannot become a criminal act and that does not give rise for cause of action for instituting a criminal complaint. A purely civil dispute arising out of contractual relationship between the parties is the subject matter to be adjudicated by a regular civil Court or by a commercial Court thus, it does not fall under the jurisdiction of the criminal Court. Therefore, the parties are not permitted to convert any type of civil dispute into a criminal offence. I agreed upto the extent that whenever a civil dispute is pending, a criminal act, if committed with intention to cause injury to someone or having ingredients of criminal offence then both civil suit and criminal action can be sustained but herein, prima facie perusal of the complaint reveals that the language used in lodging FIR itself is not sufficient to draw a conclusion that a criminal offence is committed by denial of transaction or denial of execution of a document. 8. In the present case, the allegation as made in the complaint itself are not sufficient to constitute a criminal offence, I failed to understand that without application of mind, how the learned trial Court jumped to a conclusion to sent the matter for re-investigation. 9. In view of the aforesaid discussions, the report as submitted by SHO, Police Station Kotwali further indicates that the police submitted a negative final report before the trial Court, which was sent for re-investigation by the Court. 9. In view of the aforesaid discussions, the report as submitted by SHO, Police Station Kotwali further indicates that the police submitted a negative final report before the trial Court, which was sent for re-investigation by the Court. The report further indicates that a civil suit titled as 'Suresh Kumar v. Khetmal' is also pending and the original rukka is filed in that civil dispute. It further fortifies the contentions that the respondent is misusing the jurisdiction of criminal court to extract his money from the petitioner. The present matter is absolutely of a civil nature and the registration of FIR and after submission of negative final report, sending the same for re-investigation is just an abuse of process of law, therefore, such proceedings cannot be sustained in the eye of law. Thus, the same are liable to be quashed and set side. 10. Accordingly, the Misc. Petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is allowed. The FIR No.269/2018 registered at the Police Station Kotwali District Pali and all the criminal proceedings in terms of the aforementioned FIR are hereby ordered to be quashed and set aside.