Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
Vijay Bishnoi, J.
Ram Chandra S/o Ram Kishan and Ors. – Appellants
Versus
State of Rajasthan and Ors. – Respondents
S.B. Criminal Misc. (Pet.) Nos. 3125 of 2017, 1626, 1628 of 2019, 4841, 5701 of 2021
Decided On : 12-01-2022
Indian Penal Code,1860 - Sections 420, 406 and 506 – Criminal Procedure Code,1973 - Section 482 - Oral agreement – Cheat people by making payment in part and misappropriating - Petitioner for issuing directions to police authorities to conduct fair and impartial investigation into FIR of Police Station District for offences punishable - Complainant/Respondent No. 2 submitted a report at Police Station District Bikaner alleging therein that on an oral agreement between him and petitioners who happened to be partners of partnership firm viz. M/s. Oil Mills in presence of some other responsible and prestigious persons complainant/respondent No. 2 agreed to sell groundnuts to petitioners worth and petitioners promised him that payment would be made on delivery of goods - In pursuance thereof complainant/respondent No. 2 supplied groundnuts worth petitioners but received partial payment of only on different that too in installments through RTGS and some groundnuts worth amount was also returned and he received a sum of amount in respect of above supplied goods - Held, There is no quarrel about the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court as well as the Coordinate Benches of this Court in the above mentioned judgments relied by learned counsel for petitioners but as observed earlier merely civil/commercial transaction between parties is hardly a reason to hold that criminal prosecution cannot be launched when FIR/complaint reveals that a case for commission of offence is made out - Apart from above one thing which is bothering Court is the conduct of petitioners - Multiple FIRs have been lodged against petitioners in around four years by the different businessmen leveling similar types of allegations that petitioners asked them to supply some goods with assurance that payment would be made to them in due course of time however part payments were made but thereafter petitioners refused to make payment of due amount - Such conduct of petitioners itself deprives them to seek indulgence form this Court in its extraordinary jurisdiction as of case lead to an impression that petitioners are in habit of doing such activities and for this reason also challenge of petitioners to impugned FIRs is without any basis - Petitions also stand dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
Vijay Bishnoi, J.
1. Since the subject matter of SBCRLMP No. 5701/2021 is similar to that of SBCRLMP Nos. 3125/2017, 1626/2019, 1628/2019 and 4841/2021, the record of SBCRLMP No. 5701/2021 was called and the said misc. petition is being decided by this common order along with the above referred criminal misc. petitions.
2. The following criminal misc. petitions under section 482 Cr.P.C. have been filed by the petitioners for quashing the following FIRs;
| SBCRLMP No. | FIR No. & Date | Police Station & District | for the offences punishable u/S |
| 3125/2017 | 218/20170 4.09.2017 | Sri Dungargarh, District Bikaner | 420 and 406 IPC |
| 1626/2019 1628/2019 | 91/2019 13.03.2019 | Rawatsar, District Hanumangarh | 420, 406 and 120-B IPC |
| 4841/2021 | 426/2021 01.09.2021 | Rawatsar, District Hanumangarh | 420, 406 and 506 IPC |
3. Whereas, SBCRLMP No. 5701/2021 has been filed by petitioner for issuing directions to the police authorities to conduct fair and impartial investigation into the FIR No. 426/2021 dated 01.09.2021 of Police Station Rawatsar, District Hanumangarh for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 406 and 506 IPC.
4. Brief facts relevant and essential for disposal of these criminal misc. petitions are noted herein below:-
SBCRLMP No. 3125/2017
5. Complainant/Respondent No. 2 - Kana Ram submitted a report at Police Station Shridungargarh, District Bikaner alleging, inter alia, therein that on an oral agreement between him and petitioners Ramchandra and Sushil Kumar, who happened to be the partners of partnership firm viz. M/s. Santpal Sushil Kumar Oil Mills, Rawatsar, Hanumangarh in the presence of some other responsible and prestigious persons, the complainant/respondent No. 2 agreed to sell groundnuts to the petitioners worth Rs. 3 Crore and the petitioners promised him that the payment would be made on delivery of goods. In pursuance thereof, complainant/respondent No. 2 supplied groundnuts worth Rs. 2,84,18,661/- to the petitioners but received partial payment of Rs. 1,39,50,000/- only on different dates that too in installments through RTGS and some groundnuts worth Rs. 24,35,806/- was also returned and, thus, he received a sum of Rs. 1,63,85,806/- (Rs. 1,39,50,000/- + Rs. 24,35,806/-) in respect of the above supplied goods.
6. After receiving the aforementioned amount, the total amount outstanding from the petitioners was Rs. 1,23,88,791/- (Rs. 1,20,32,855/- for goods supplied + Rs. 3,55,936/- for Bardana). The complainant/respondent No. 2 allegedly demanded the due amount from the petitioners on several occasions but they didn't pay the same.
7. It is alleged that on 21.08.2017, in the presence of the complainant/respondent No. 2 and other responsible persons, the petitioners refused to pay the due amount as well as groundnuts stating that it is their way to cheat the people by making payment in part and misappropriating the remaining due amount and the complainant/respondent No. 2 can do whatever he wants. Thus, the petitioners, with the intention to gain illegal profit, allegedly misappropriated the amount of Rs. 1,23,88,791/- (Rs. 1,20,32,855/- for goods supplied + Rs. 3,55,936/- for Bardana), which caused loss to the complainant/respondent No. 2.
8. On the basis of the said information, FIR No. 218/2017 was registered at Police Station Sridungargarh, District Bikaner for the offences punishable under Sections 420 and 406 IPC and investigation was commenced.
SBCRLMP Nos. 1626/2019 & 1628/2019
9. Complainant/Respondent No. 2 - Hardutt Singh submitted a report at Police Station Rawatsar, District Hanumangarh, alleging, inter alia, therein that the complainant/respondent No. 2 used to do business with the petitioners and on account of that several business transactions were carried out between them, however, a sum of Rs. 18,47,749/- became due from the petitioners. It is further alleged that upon de
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
