The main legal point established in the judgment is that if the contents of the FIR disclose commission of any offence, the same cannot be quashed under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

JUDGMENT

1. This criminal miscellaneous petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing the FIR No.392/2018 dated 03.07.2018 registered at Police Station Chomu, District Jaipur (West) under Section 420 I.P.C.

2. Drawing attention of this Court towards the contents of FIR in question, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that a loan of Rs.10,00,000/- was advanced to him by the complainant on interest @ 12% per annum and the instant FIR was lodged only after four years therefrom to recover the loan amount when the suit for recovery of the loan amount became barred by limitation. He submitted that since the transaction in question reveals, at the best, breach of promise by the petitioner, the FIR in question, which does not disclose commission of offence of cheating, deserves to be quashed. He relied on the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court of India in case of Sushil Sethi & Anr Vs. The State of Arunachal Pradesh & Ors.: Criminal Appeal No.l25/2020(Arising from SLP(Crl_.) NO.590/2019), decided on 31.01.2020 and a co-ordinate Bench judgment of this Court in case of Pradip Mundhra Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr.: 2008(1) Cr.L.R. (Raj.) 855, in support of his submissions.

3. Learned Public Prosecutor assisted by learned counsel for the complainant opposing the prayed submitted that a bare reading of the FIR discloses commission of offence of cheating and hence, it cannot be quashed by this Court under its extraordinary jurisdiction vide Section 482 Cr.P.C. They submitted that the complainant did not lodge the FIR against the petitioner immediately inasmuch as the petitioner has promised to repay the amount after three years. They submitted that there is specific allegation in the FIR that the amount was taken by the petitioner from the complainant with dishonest and fraudulent intention from the very inception satisfying the ingredients necessary to constitute offence under Section 420 I.P.C. and hence, the petition deserves to be dismissed. They relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court of India in case of Varalal Bharath Kumar and Anr. Vs. State of Telangana and Anr.: 2018 CRI.L.J. 431 and judgment of Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in case of Vijay Prakash and Anr. Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors.: 2000 CRI.L.J. 4157.

4. Heard the learned counsels for the parties and perused record.

5. It is well established principle of law that if the contents of FIR do not disclose commission of any offence, the same can be quashed by the High Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. otherwise the investigation should not be scuttled at the threshold. The Hon'ble Apex Court has, in case of Dineshbhai Chandubhai Patel Vs. State of Gujarat and Ors. and other connected cases reported in (2018) 3 Supreme Court Cases 104, held as under:-

"25. The law on the question as to when a registration of the FIR is challenged seeking its quashing by the accused under Article 226 of the Constitution or Section 482 of the Code and what are the powers of the High Court and how the High Court should deal with such question is fairly well settled.

26. This Court in State of West Bengal & Ors. vs. Swapan Kumar Guha & Ors. (AIR 1982 SC 949) had the occasion to deal with this issue. Y.V. Chandrachud, the learned Chief Justice speaking for Three Judge Bench laid down the following principle:

"21. The condition precedent to the commencement of investigation under Secton 157 of the Code is that the F.I.R. must disclose, prima facie, that a cognizable offence has been committed. It is wrong to suppose that the police have an unfettered discretion to commence investigation under Section 157 of the Code. Their right of inquiry is conditioned by the existence of reason to suspect the commission of a cognizable offence and they cannot, reasonably, have reason so to suspect unless the F.I.R., prima facie, discloses the commission of such offence. If that condition is satisfied, the investigation must go on. The Court has then no power to