IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
SUNIL KUMAR PANWAR, J.
Amna Naim Wife of Abrar Ahmad – Appellant
Versus
State Of Bihar – Respondent
Criminal Miscellaneous No.32249 of 2014
Decided on : 21-07-2022
Quashing of Criminal Proceeding - Indian Penal Code - Sections 420, 406, 504, 323 - The court found that the complaint filed against the petitioner was not admissible in the eye of law as accepting and giving bribe for the purpose of getting a loan is forbidden, illegal, and not permissible. The court held that the continuation of the proceeding was an abuse of the process of the law.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner was accused of promising to help the complainant obtain a loan, accepting money for this purpose, and later refusing to return the money. The complainant alleged assault and threat by the petitioner.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the complaint did not disclose any offense and was an abuse of the process of the law. It quashed the entire criminal proceeding, including the order by which cognizance was taken.
Issues: The issues revolved around the admissibility of the complaint in the eye of the law, the legality of accepting and giving bribe for the purpose of getting a loan, and the alleged assault and threat by the petitioner.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that accepting and giving bribe for the purpose of getting a loan is forbidden, illegal, and not permissible. It also emphasized that the continuation of the proceeding was an abuse of the process of the law.
Final Decision: The application was allowed, and the entire criminal proceeding, including the order by which cognizance was taken, was quashed.
JUDGMENT :
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for opposite party no. 2 and learned APP for the State.
2. This criminal miscellaneous application has been filed for quashing the order dated 29.05.2014 passed by Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Patna in Complaint Case No. 25229 (C)/2014 whereby and where under the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance of the offences punishable under Sections 420, 406, 504 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioner.
3. The case of the complainant-opposite party no. 2, in brief, is that in the year 2012, the petitioner/accused came to the complainant and his wife and told them that she is working in State Bank of India as ‘Dalal’ and she could help them to get loan of Rs. Five lakh for the purpose of starting a small scale industry from bank and for this work she demanded Rs. 1.25 lac at once. After agreeing, the complainant paid Rs. 1.25 lakh to the petitioner/accused for the purpose of getting the loan.
4. Further case of the complainant/opposite party no. 2 is that when loan was not sanctioned to them, complainant went to the residence of the petitioner and asked her to return his money amounting to Rs. 1.25 lakh. The petitioner agreed to return the said money in the year 2013. Thereafter, the opposite party no. 2 again went to the petitioner’s residence with witnesses of this complaint on 03.01.2014 and asked her to pay his money. The petitioner flatly refused to pay the money and also threatened to chop off his head if he raises hulla. Upon this, the complainant became furious and the petitioner showed deadly weapon to the complainant and began to assault him by iron rod, as a result of which complainant sustained head injury and he fell down. The persons, who were present there, intervened and saved the complainant. Thereafter, the complainant went to Pirbahore Police Station to lodge FIR but the police refused to lodge FIR and suggested to file complaint case before the court.
5. The complainant adduced evidences of three witnesses in support of the complaint case. After perusal of the evidence adduced on behalf of witnesses, court below found prima facie case to be made out against the petitioner under Sections 420, 406, 504 and 323 of the IPC.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that cognizance has been taken without cogent and reliable evidence. The present complaint is based on absolutely false and concocted story as she has not taken any money from the complainant on the promise of providing loan from the State Bank of India. It is also submitted that at the time of filing complaint no documentary evidence has been brought on record with respect to payment of any amount on the pretext of grant of loan. Such as oral assertion regarding payment is not admissible in law. It is further submitted that petitioner is not a authorised employee of State Bank of India and she has no authority to provide loan to any one
7. It is further submitted that allegation of assault to the complainant is also false and concocted because of the fact that petitioner is an orthopedically handicapped lady. She has been granted disability certificate. She is also receiving monthly handicapped inability pension of Rs. 300/-. This fact has already been brought on record by annexing Annexure-2 series to this petition.
8. It is further submitted on behalf of the petitioner that prior to filing of the said complaint petition, the opposite party no. 2 had also sent legal notice to the petitioner asking her to return the said amount before 15.01.2014, which is annexed as Annexure-3 to this petition. The said notice itself contains no detailed description about the occurrence, which happened with the complainant on 03.01.2014 and also it does not contain the allegation of assaulting to the complainant by the petitioner. There is also no document in support of injury which is alleged to have been sustained by the complainant.
9. Learned counsel for opposite party no. 2 submitt
Prahlad Rai & Anr. Vs. The State of Bihar & Anr. reported in 2019 (3) PLJR 1259
Vijay Sharma Vs. State of Bihar reported as 2011 (1) PLJR 780
AI
Accepting and giving bribe for the purpose of getting a loan is forbidden, illegal, and not permissible.
The court quashed criminal proceedings as the allegations did not disclose a cognizable offence and were deemed an abuse of process, emphasizing the distinction between civil and criminal disputes.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that if criminality is made out, civil and criminal cases can proceed simultaneously.
The court established that allegations of non-return of funds in a professional context do not constitute criminal offences under IPC Sections 417, 406, or 506.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that a criminal proceeding can be quashed if it is manifestly attended with mala fide and maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive.
A mere breach of contract does not constitute criminal cheating unless fraudulent intent is established at the outset of the transaction.
The necessity of proving fraudulent or dishonest intention for the offences of criminal breach of trust and cheating, and the distinction between civil and criminal disputes.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.