The court upheld the continuation of the investigation into the alleged offences under Sections 420, 406, and 120B of the IPC, emphasizing the need for convincing material to justify quashing an FIR under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

JUDGMENT

Sandeep Mehta, J. - Heard learned counsel representing the parties. Perused the material available on record.

2. The instant misc. petition has been filed by the accused petitioners Dinesh Kela and Jugal Kishore Kela seeking quashing of the FIR No.117/2019 registered at the Police Station Khandafalsa, Jodhpur for the offences under Sections 420, 460 and 120B of the IPC.

3. Briefly stated the facts as alleged in the impugned FIR lodged by the complainant-respondent No.2 are narrated herein below for the sake of ready reference:

The FIR came to be lodged by the complainant Rakesh Rathi at the Police Station Khandafalsa on 15.06.2019 alleging inter alia that Dinesh Kela was known to him since long. He was involved in money lending business. About a year and half ago, the complainant required money for his personal and business purposes on which, he asked Dinesh Kela for hand-loan of Rs.1,00,000/-. Dinesh Kela gave him a sum of Rs.88,000/- after deducting a sum of Rs.12,000/- towards future interest. At that time, Dileep Rathi was also present with the complainant. It was settled that loan would be repaid in ten installments of Rs.10,000/- each. At the time of advancing loan, Dinesh Kela took three blank signed cheques of the complainant payable on his Karnataka Bank account and a signed stamp, etc. by way of security. The complainant alleged that the intention of Dinesh Kela was to cheat him right at the inception of the transaction. He repaid five loan installments to Rakesh Rathi son of Nandkishore Rathi after due affirmation from Dinesh Kela. Remaining five installments were paid by the complainant personally to Dinesh Kela. As per the complainant, he had repaid the entire amount of loan to Dinesh Kela who, with the intention of fraud and cheating, misused one of the cheques given by way of security by filling in a fictitious amount of Rs.5,00,000/- and deposited the same in the bank account of his father Shri Jugal Kishore Kela. It was further alleged that Dinesh Kela was threatening that he would also present the two other cheques and in this manner, he was attempting to blackmail the complainant. On the basis of this report, the impugned FIR No.117/2019 came to be registered against the petitioners for the offences under Sections 420, 460 and 120B of the IPC and investigation was commenced.

4. As per the factual report placed on record, the investigating officer had, during the course of investigation, collected material to the effect that there was no monetary transaction between the complainant and Jugal Kishore Kela and that the cheque in question had, as a matter of fact, been given by the complainant Rakesh Rathi to the accused petitioner Dinesh Kela who misused it by getting the same presented in his father's bank account by filling in a fictitious amount of Rs.5,00,000/-.

5. Learned counsel Shri Ravindra Kumar Purohit representing the petitioners placed reliance on the following judgments in support of the contention that prima-facie ingredients of the offences alleged are not made out against the petitioners from the highest allegations as set out in the impugned FIR:

(i) Prof. R.K. Vijaysarthi & Anr. vs. Sudha Seetharam & Anr, (2019) 2 RCrD(SC) 191

(ii) M/s. Eicher Tractor Ltd. & Ors., vs. Harihar Singh & Anr., (2008) 16 SCC 763

(iii) Kiran Bhai Kapadiya & Ors. vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr., (2017) 4 RCrD 489 (Raj.)

(iv) Vinod Natesan vs. State of Kerala & Ors., (2019) 2 SCC 401

6. After going through the ratio of the judgments relied upon by the counsel representing the petitioners, I am of the opinion that the facts discussed therein are totally distinguishable from the facts of the case at hand. Counsel for the petitioners has failed to convince the Court that there existed any kind of fiduciary relationship between the petitioner Jugal Kishore and the complainant Rakesh Rathi. The petitioner Dinesh Kela appeared before the I.O. but he has not submitted any document or record which can show even by semblance tha