Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 475 (RAJ)

Sunil Kumar Jain v. State of Rajasthan

2024-03-19

SUDESH BANSAL

body2024
ORDER : Mr. Sudesh Bansal, J. - Three petitioners have jointly filed this criminal misc. petition under Section 482 Cr.PC, seeking to quash FIR No.126/2018 registered at Police Station Jyoti Nagar, Jaipur City (South) for offences under Sections 420, 406, 467, 468 & 120B IPC. 2. Heard counsel for petitioners, counsel for non-petitioner No.2-complainant and learned Public Prosecutor as also perused the record. 3. At the outset, it may be noted that learned Public Prosecutor placed on record progress report of investigation in the impugned FIR, dated 01.02.2024 and pointed out that after investigation in the impugned FIR, allegations of FIR against one Megha Jain and petitioner No.1-Sunil Kumar Jain, have been found correct and criminal case for offences under Sections 420, 406, 467, 468 & 120B IPC have been found proved against both accused persons. However, due to currency of interim stay order dated 04.12.2018 passed in the present petition, charge-sheet could not be filed before the Judicial Magistrate. With consent of counsel for both parties, progress report of investigation dated 01.02.2024 is taken on record. 4. In view of progress report of investigation, since no prima facie case against petitioner No.2-Sahil Jain and petitioner No.3- Pankaj Baraya, has been found proved in the impugned FIR, therefore, the prayer to quash the impugned FIR qua petitioners No.2 & 3 has become infructuous and accordingly, the present petition qua petitioners No.2 & 3 stands disposed of. 5. In respect of petitioner No.1, counsel for petitioner pointed out that marriage of petitioner was scheduled on 19.11.2017, for which to perform the functions of marriage ceremony, Rajwada Marriage Place situated at Kukas, Jaipur-Delhi Road, was booked through an event management company "myshadiwale.com". The representative of the event management company was Ms. Priyanka Gupta, to whom, the petitioner paid Rs. 3,55,000/- in three installments against total payment agreed to the tune of Rs. 5,25,000/-. It has been contended that petitioner has no privity of contract to book the said marriage place from non-petitioner No.2-complainant, who has lodged the impugned FIR being partner of M/s. Silver Leaf Designers, care of Ashoka Tent House. Counsel submits that as per contents of FIR, the marriage place was booked by Ms. Megha Jain for and on behalf of event management company "myshadiwale.com", to perform functions of marriage of the petitioner. Counsel submits that as per contents of FIR, the marriage place was booked by Ms. Megha Jain for and on behalf of event management company "myshadiwale.com", to perform functions of marriage of the petitioner. Since, at the nick time of marriage ceremony on 19.11.2017, a ruckus was created at the marriage place and lights were off and after conclusion of ceremony, petitioner was blackmailed to pay Rs. 11,00,000/-, hence one FIR was lodged by brother of petitioner No.1 being FIR No.529/2017 on 22.12.2017 for offences under Sections 420, 406, 384, 452 & 120B IPC. 6. It has been contended by counsel for petitioner that in the FIR No.529/2017, the representative of the event management company "myshadiwale.com" Ms. Megha Jain, proprietor of Ashoka Tent House and concerned persons, who were managing the marriage place on 19.11.2017, were implicated as accused persons. In the investigation of this FIR, it was observed that petitioner has no privity of contract with Ashoka Tent House, however, allegation to blackmail the petitioner to pay Rs. 11,00,000/- was not found true, hence negative final report, treating the dispute as of civil nature was submitted on 27.12.2017. 7. Counsel for petitioner contends that the impugned FIR has been lodged belated on 04.05.2018, wherein petitioner has falsely been implicated just to wreck vengeance due to filing of FIR No.529/2017 by the brother of petitioner. He submits that if the complainant has any due payment, same is against the event management company "myshadiwale.com" or Ms. Megha Jain, petitioner has no nexus with the complainant and alternatively, contents of FIR as a whole, at the most, give rise to a dispute of civil nature. Hence, in such view of the matter, the impugned FIR qua petitioner No.1 deserves to be quashed. 8. Learned Public Prosecutor and counsel for complainant opposed contentions made by counsel for petitioner and submit that petitioner has connivance with Ms. Megha Jain and booked the marriage place of complainant, having dishonest intention since inception to cheat the complainant and to misappropriate lakhs of amount of complainant by committing criminal breach of trust. It has been submitted that after investigation in the FIR, allegation of connivance between petitioner No.1 and Ms. Megha Jain, has been found true and therefore, the FIR may not be quashed, as apart from civil liability, petitioner No.1 is also guilty for committing offence of cheating and criminal breach of trust. It has been submitted that after investigation in the FIR, allegation of connivance between petitioner No.1 and Ms. Megha Jain, has been found true and therefore, the FIR may not be quashed, as apart from civil liability, petitioner No.1 is also guilty for committing offence of cheating and criminal breach of trust. It has further been submitted that criminal proceedings can continue simultaneously with civil proceedings, if it is proved that intention of petitioner was dishonest and to cheat the complainant since inception. 9. Heard. Considered. 10. Perusal of contents of impugned FIR indicates that allegations against the petitioner No.1 Sunil Kumar Jain, have been levelled in the FIR that he had conspiracy with Ms. Megha Jain and with support of his family members and friends, made scuffle/manhandling with the complainant and assured to make his payment. Further, in the FIR, there is allegation that a forged statement was prepared, showing to make payment of Rs. 6,49,000/- through RTGS in the account of complainant and in such forgery, petitioner has also stated to be involved with event management company "myshadiwale.com". From the progress report of investigation, it appears that a notice under Section 41A Cr.PC was served upon the petitioner and after thorough investigation, involvement of Ms. Megha Jain and petitioner No.1 Sunil Kumar Jain has been found proved and prima facie case for offences under Sections 420, 406, 467, 468 & 120B IPC has been held proved against both of them. 11. This Court is of opinion that in the light of allegations made in the impugned FIR against the petitioner to assure the complainant for making his payment and his involvement with the event management company "myshadiwale.com" so also to prepare a forged statement, showing to make payment of Rs. 6,49,000/- through RTGS to the complainant, it is difficult to hold that the petitioner has falsely been roped in the present FIR. Even if, it is assumed that petitioner has no direct privity of contract with the complainant to book the Rajwada marriage place to perform functions of his marriage, however, this is an admitted fact that all functions of petitioner's marriage were performed at that place, which is indisputably in the management of firm M/s Silver Leaf Designers, on whose behalf the complainant lodged the impugned FIR. It is not a case of petitioner that he has made due payment against total agreed amount of Rs. It is not a case of petitioner that he has made due payment against total agreed amount of Rs. 5,25,000/- to the event management company "myshadiwale.com" as least. There is allegation in the FIR that petitioner had dishonest and fraudulent intention since inception, having connivance with the representative of event management company "myshadiwale.com". The legal proposition is no more res integra that the dispute of civil nature does not preclude to initiate criminal proceedings, if dishonest and fraudulent intention to cheat and to commit criminal breach of trust is proved. In the present case, after investigation, petitioner has been found to have connivance with Ms. Megha Jain, representative of event management company "myshadiwale.com", to cheat the complainant and to misappropriate his legitimate amount by committing criminal breach of trust. 12. The contours of powers to quash the criminal proceedings by the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. are well defined in various judgments passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. In case of V. Ravi Kumar v. State [ (2019)14 SCC 568 ], the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that it is wholly impermissible for the High Court to enter into the factual arena to adjudge the correctness of allegations made in the complaint. 13. In case of M/s Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra, [2021 SCC Online SC 315], the Apex Court elaborately considered the scope and extent of powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. It was observed that the power of quashing should be exercised sparingly, with circumspection and in the rarest of rare cases. It was further observed that while examining the FIR/ complaint, quashing of which is sought, the Court cannot embark upon an enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made therein. The parameters laid down by the Apex Court in celebrated judgments delivered in cases of R.P. Kapur v. State of Punjab [ AIR 1960 SC 866 ] and State of Haryana v. Choudhary Bhajan Lal [1992 Supp. (1) SCC 335] have been reiterated. 14. Having considered the case of petitioner on the parameters laid down by the Apex Court, in the opinion of this Court, petitioner's case does not fall in the category of rarest of rare cases and it cannot be held that petitioner has falsely been implicated in the present case. (1) SCC 335] have been reiterated. 14. Having considered the case of petitioner on the parameters laid down by the Apex Court, in the opinion of this Court, petitioner's case does not fall in the category of rarest of rare cases and it cannot be held that petitioner has falsely been implicated in the present case. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to quash the impugned FIR and consequential proceedings thereto qua petitioner No.1, however, deems it just and proper to observe that it would be open for the petitioner No.1 to take a plea in respect of having no privity of contract with the complainant, at the stage of framing charges before the trial Court. 15. As a result, the present criminal misc. petition fails and is hereby dismissed. Consequently, interim stay order dated 04.12.2018 comes to an end. 16. All pending application(s), if any, stand(s) disposed of. 17. A copy of this Order be sent to the concerned Investigating Officer for further action.