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

2015 Supreme(Raj) 2100

RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT AT JAIPUR BENCH
Banwari Lal Sharma, J.
Smt. Jaya Bhardwaj - Appellant
Versus
State of Raj. and another - Respondent
S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No. 5153 of 2015.
Decided On : 17-12-2015

Advocates:
For the Petitioner:J.R. Tantia, Advocate.
For the Respondents: N.S. Dhakad, P.P.

An FIR cannot be quashed if it discloses a cognizable offense and the investigation is ongoing.

Headnote:

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE - SECTION 482 - QUASHING OF FIR - CONDITIONS - FIR CANNOT BE QUASHED IF IT DISCLOSES A COGNIZABLE OFFENSE - COURT CANNOT QUASH FIR IF INVESTIGATION IS PENDING AND OFFENSE IS MADE OUT AGAINST THE ACCUSED.

Fact of the Case:

Petitioner sought to quash an FIR registered against him for offenses under Sections 420 and 406 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) alleging cheating and criminal breach of trust. The petitioner argued that the agreement for the sale of land had a 25-day time limit for payment of the remaining sale amount, which the complainant failed to do, resulting in the automatic cancellation of the agreement. The petitioner also claimed that he had issued a notice to the complainant, but the complainant failed to pay the remaining amount, making the dispute a civil matter.

Finding of the Court:

The court observed that the allegations against the petitioner were serious, as he had received part payment of the sale amount but sold the property to other persons. The court found that the investigation had revealed evidence supporting these allegations.

Issues: Whether the FIR should be quashed in light of the petitioner's arguments that the agreement was automatically canceled due to non-payment within the stipulated time and that the dispute was civil in nature.

Ratio Decidendi: The court referred to the judgment in State of Haryana & Ors. v. Ch. Bhajan Lal & Ors., where the Supreme Court had laid down seven grounds for quashing an FIR. The court found that none of these grounds were applicable in the present case, as the allegations against the petitioner disclosed a cognizable offense and the investigation was ongoing.

Final Decision: The court dismissed the petition, holding that the FIR could not be quashed as it disclosed a cognizable offense and the investigation was ongoing.

JUDGMENT

1. - Petitioner-accused has preferred this misc. petition u/s 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing the FIR No. 202/2015 registered at PS Sodala, Jaipur (South) for the offence u/s 420 & 406 IPC.

2. The brief facts of the case are that respondent no. 2 complainant had lodged a report before SHO, PS Sodala, Jaipur (South) which reads as under:-

"fuosnu gS fd izkFkhZ us Jherh t;k] mez yxHkx 60 o"kZ] /keZiRuh LoxhZ; Jh ewyki mQZ ewypan iq= Jh t;k Hkkj}kt] tkfr&czkge.k] fuoklh&xzke ekSBwdk] rglhy&ckulwj] ftyk&vyoj] jktLFkku ls mldh d'f"k tks fd xzke ekSBqdk iVokj gYdk ekSBqdk Hkw0v0fu0 {ks=&gkthiqj] rglhy&ckulwj] ftyk&vyoj esa d'f"k Hkwfe ftlds [kkrk uEcj 274 u;k 121 iqjkuk esa fLFkr [kljk uEcj 572 jdck 0-10 gsDVs;j] [kljk uEcj 573 jdck 0-04 gsDVs;j] [kljk uEcj 575 jdck 0-04 gsDVs;j] [kljk 576 jdck 0-38 gsDVs;j] [kljk 577 jdck 1-12 gsDVs;j] [kljk uEcj 578 jdck 0-01 gsDVs;j] [kljk uEcj 579 jdck 0-72 gsDVs;j] [kljk uEcj 580 jdck 0-62 gsDVs;j] [kljk uEcj 653 jdck 0-22 gsDVs;j] [kljk uEcj 655 jdck 0-19 gsDVs;j] [kljk uEcj 742 jdck 0-47 gsDVs;j dqy fdrk 11 dqy jdck 3-91 gsDVs;j esa 1@4 fgLlk] [kkrk la[;k u;k 451 iqjkuk 121 esa [kljk uEcj 656 jdck 0-81 gsDVs;j dqy fdrk 1 dqy jdck 0-81 gsDVs;j esa fgLlk 1@4 nj fgLlk 17@64 gS] ,oa xzke&Qrsgiqj] iVokj gYdk ekSBqdk] Hkw0v0fu0 {ks= gkthiqj] rglhy&ckulwj] ftyk&vyoj] jktLFkku esa fLFkr d'f"k Hkwfe ftldk [kkrk uEcj u;k 164 iqjkuk 159 esa [kljk uEcj 35 jdck 0-01 gsDVs;j] [kljk uEcj 36 jdck 0-75 gsDVs;j dqy fdrk 2 dqy jdck 0-76 gsDVs;j esa fgLlk 1@6 gSA ;g fd mDr Hkwfe esa Jherh t;k ds fgLls dh laiw.kZ Hkwfe dks izkFkhZ us fnukad 17-9-2014 dks dz; fd;k Fkk ftldk bdjkjukek uksVsjh ifCyd esa ;gk 17-9-2014 dks izekf.kr fd;k gqvk gSA mDr Hkwfe ds fodz; ls lacaf/kr nksuksa i{kksa esa ysunsu o okrkZyki lksMkyk ;kno isV~ksy iai ds ikl ;kno <+kck esa gqbZ Fkh rFkk lkbZ isVs dh jde] pSd vkfn blh LFkku ij fn;s x;s Fks vkSj bdjkjukek t;iqj esa fy[kk x;k FkkA ;g fd izkFkhZ us mijksDr d'f"k Hkwfe esa Jherh t;k ds lEiw.kZ fgLls dh Hkwfe dks dqy :i;ksa 24]00]000@& v{kjs pkSchl yk[k :i;s esa dz; fd;k ftlds lkbZ isVs izkFkhZ us fnukad 17-9-2014 dks :i;s 11]000@& v{kjs X;kjg gtkj :i;s uxn o fnukad 20-9-2014 dks :i;s 1]00]000@& v{kjs ,d yk[k :i;s tfj;s pSd la[;k 022119 lsUV~y cSad vkWQ bf.M;k 'kk[kk cM+ t;iqj ls Hkqxrku Jherh t;k dks dj fn;k Fkk rFkk 'ks"k jkf'k dk Hkqxrku bdjkj ukek dh fnukad ls 15 fnol ds vanj dj jftLVjh izkFkhZ ds uke djokus dk djkj fd;k Fkk ijUrq ,d lIrkg ckn tc izkFkhZ us mDr Jherh t;k dks jftLVjh djokus ds fy;s dgk rks Jherh t;k us dgk fd gekjs ifjokj esa vkil esa mDr Hkwfe ij LVs (vLFkkbZ fu"ks/kkKk) vk x;k gS tks gekjh vkilh lgefr ls dqN gh fnu esa gV tk;sxk fQj vkids uke jftLVjh djok nsaxsA izkFkhZ us tc Hkh Jherh t;k ls lEidZ djrk rks ckj&ckj LVs tYnh gh gV tk;sxk ;g dgrs Vky&eVksy dj nsrhA izkFkhZ dks 'kadk gqbZ rks irk fd;k fd fdlh us dgk gS fd LVs rks dc dk gh gV x;k gS vkSj mDr Hkwfe dk rks fodz; ukekarj.k Hkh [kqy x;k gS blls ,slk izrhr gksrk gS fd Jheku tks izkFkhZ ds lkFk Jherh t;k us /kks[kk/kM+h dh gS vr% Jhekuth ls fuosnu gS fd mDr Jherh t;k ds f[kykQ fjiksVZ ntZ dj izkFkhZ dks U;k; fnykus dh d'ik djsaA"

3. On the above said report, FIR No. 202/2015 u/s 420 & 406 IPC was registered and investigation commenced.

4. Mr. Bhawani Singh, ASI, PS Sodala is present in person and submitted factual report of the matter through Mr. N.S. Dhakad, learned Public Prosecutor which is taken on record.

5. As per factual report, offence u/s 420 & 406 IPC is made out against the present petitioner.

6. Mr. Jai Raj Tantia, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as per agreement, 25 days' time limit was fixed for payment of remaining sale amount. The respondent no. 2 complainant failed to make payment of remaining sale amount, therefore, said agreement has automatically stood cancelled. The petitioner has already issued notice to respondent no. 2 and even after notice, respondent no. 2 failed to pay the remaining sale amount, therefore, dispute is only of civil nature. No offence of cheating or crimina














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