SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2024 Supreme(Pat) 1097

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Sandeep Kumar, J.
Kapil Kamboj Son of Late Rakesh Kamboj - Petitioner
Vs.
The State of Bihar - Respondent
Criminal Miscellaneous No.15133 of 2023
Decided On : 29-07-2024

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioners:Mr.Saket Tiwary, Mr. Animesh Gupta, Mr. Shivam Gupta, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Abhay Kumar, APP
for the Informant :Mr. Bipin Kumar, Ms. Sarita Kumari, Ms. Vanshika Nupur, Advocate

Allegations of cheating and impersonation require credible evidence; without it, prosecution cannot proceed.

Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 419, 420, 467, and 468 - Quashing of FIR - Allegations of cheating and impersonation in job procurement - Petitioner accused of demanding Rs. 12,00,000/- for a job, but no evidence of communication or transaction provided by the informant - Court finds allegations improbable and lacking corroboration. (Paras 2-14)

(B) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 156(3) - FIR filed based on a complaint - Court emphasizes the necessity of credible evidence to support allegations of criminal conduct. (Paras 3, 12)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner was accused of demanding a large sum for a job that was never provided, with the informant failing to substantiate claims with evidence.

Findings of Court:
The prosecution was deemed mala fide, with the court highlighting the absence of credible evidence and the implausibility of the informant's claims.

Issues: The main issues included the credibility of the informant's allegations and the absence of evidence supporting the charges.

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that without credible evidence of communication or transaction, the allegations of cheating and impersonation could not stand, emphasizing that no one can be prosecuted for an unlawful agreement to secure employment.

Result: FIR quashed.

ORDER :

Heard the parties.

2. The present application has been filed for quashing the FIR being Bettiah Nagar P.S. Case No. 37/2023 registered for offences punishable under sections 419, 420, 467 and 468 of the Indian Penal Code. The FIR has been registered on a complaint under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. bearing Complaint Case No. 3013/2022 filed by opposite party no. 2.

3. As per the FIR, the substance of the allegation is that the petitioner demanded Rs.12,00,000/- (Rs. Twelve Lakh only) as security amount from the opposite party no. 2 for providing a job in the Tourism Department, Government of Bihar and out of the aforesaid amount, Rs. 6,00,000/-(Rs. Six Lakh only) was to be paid as advance. It is further alleged that on the assurance of the petitioner, the opposite party no. 2 gave Rs. 6,00,000/-(Rs. Six Lakh only) to the petitioner for providing job to him but neither the job was provided to opposite party no. 2 nor on demand, the money was returned.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the informant- opposite party no. 2 has falsely implicated the petitioner in the instant FIR. The petitioner is not involved in any criminal case. He further submits that the petitioner does not know the opposite party no. 2 and it seems that some trap is organized in order to implicate the petitioner in the false and frivolous case.

5. Learned counsel also submits that the opposite party no.2 has not furnished a single proof which could be corroborated with the facts of the case and even the police also asked for some proofs from the opposite party no. 2 which he could not give at all and the source of the amount stated in the impugned FIR has not been verified at all. The opposite party no. 2 has not provided any evidence of payment in any way.

6. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that when the opposite party no. 2 met with the petitioner on October 21, 2021, how a person can give Rs. 6,00,000/-(Rs. Six Lakh only) to an unknown person within a period of two months. It has also been submitted that the opposite party no. 2 has failed to prove any communication with the petitioner and there is not even a single communication between the petitioner and the opposite party no. 2 in any form i.e. call, messages, WhatsApp, emails etc. The opposite party no. 2 was not even aware about the address of the petitioner before handing over cash.

7. It has further been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the case of the opposite party no. 2- Informant is totally false and frivolous as the very recital in the complaint case would reveal that the same is highly improbable and thus clearly for oblique reasons best known to the opposite party no. 2. On the face of the allegations made by the opposite party no. 2, no offence under Sections 419, 420, 467 and 468 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 could be made against the petitioner.

8. It has further been argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that Section 419 of the Indian Penal Code prescribes punishment for the offence of cheating by personation. The essential ingredients to frame the charge under Section 419, first and foremost, it is required to be proved that the accused induced someone to deliver any property and secondly, the accused did so dishonestly by impersonating himself as someone else. In the present case, the opposite party no. 2 nowhere stated that due to impersonation of the petitioner, the opposite party no.2 was induced to grant gratification for procurement of job and it is also not stated that such gratification for procurement of job would not have granted in case the petitioner did not impersonate himself. Since there is nothing in the evidence to show that the opposite party no. 2 was induced by the petitioner, the petitioner could not be guilty for cheating by personating.

9. It has also been argued that a bare perusal of the complaint reveals that even if the parties were in agreement to commit an offence, employment in Government ca

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top