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
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
Deepak Kumar Shrivas and Anr. vs. State of Chhattisgarh and Ors. reported in (2024) 3 SCC 601
Vijay Sharma and Anr. vs. State of Bihar & Anr. reported in 2011 (1) PLJR 780
Manju Devi vs. The State of Bihar and Ors. reported in 2017(2) PLJR 560
Allegations of cheating and impersonation require credible evidence; without it, prosecution cannot proceed.
An illegal contract, not supported by evidence, cannot sustain criminal prosecution; charges under IPC for cheating were found baseless.
Serious criminal offences affecting public interest cannot be quashed based on private settlements; substantial evidence must be evaluated during trial.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the distinction between breach of contract and cheating, emphasizing the need for fraudulent and dishonest intention for the offense of cheating to....
Criminal Proceedings should not be encouraged, when it is found to be mala fide or otherwise an abuse of the process of the court. Superior Courts while exercising this power should also strive to se....
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.