Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2022 Supreme(Raj) 2065

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
Vijay Bishnoi, J.
Ram Chandra & Ors. – Appellants
Versus
The State Of Rajasthan & Ors. – Respondents
S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 3125/2017 Connected With S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 1626/2019, S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 1628/2019, S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 4841/2021 and S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 5701/2021
Decided On : 03-01-2022

Advocates appeared:
Mr. J.S. Choudhary, Sr. Advocate Assisted By Mr. Pradeep Choudhary Mr. Rakesh Matoria Mr. Shreedhar Purohit (Through Vc), for the Appellant
Mr. S.K. Bhati, Public Prosecutor Mr. Rajendra Choudhary (Through Vc) Mr. A.R. Godara Mr. R.S. Choudhary Mr. Jayant Mahecha For Mr. Sudhir Saruparia, for the Respondent.Mr. Vedpalshivram, Ci, Sho, Ps Rawatsar, District Hanumangarh, Present In Person.

The main legal point established in the judgment is that the abuse of process of law in quashing the FIRs requires a careful analysis of the allegations and the nature of the disputes, and the conduct of the accused can influence the court's decision.

Headnote:
ABUSE OF PROCESS OF LAW - Criminal Misc. Petitions - Section 482 Cr.P.C. - [SBCRLMP] - [Quashing of FIRs] - [Sections 420, 406, 506 IPC] - The court discussed the abuse of process of law in quashing the FIRs filed against the petitioners for offences punishable under Sections 420, 406, and 506 IPC. The court analyzed the principles for quashing FIRs under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and emphasized that the FIRs disclosed the commission of offences under Sections 406 and 420 IPC. The court also highlighted the conduct of the petitioners, noting multiple FIRs lodged against them over four years with similar allegations, indicating a pattern of behavior. The court concluded that the petitioners' challenge to the impugned FIRs lacked merit and dismissed the criminal misc. petitions.
Fact of the Case:

The petitioners were accused of cheating and misappropriation in multiple business transactions, leading to the filing of FIRs against them. The petitioners sought to quash the FIRs, arguing that the disputes were of a civil nature and the criminal proceedings were an abuse of process of law.
Finding of the Court:

The court found that the FIRs disclosed the commission of offences under Sections 406 and 420 IPC. The court also noted the pattern of behavior exhibited by the petitioners, with multiple FIRs lodged against them over four years with similar allegations. The court concluded that the petitioners' challenge to the impugned FIRs lacked merit and dismissed the criminal misc. petitions.
Issues: The issues revolved around the abuse of process of law in quashing the FIRs, the nature of the disputes between the parties, and the commission of offences under Sections 406 and 420 IPC.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that the FIRs disclosed the commission of offences under Sections 406 and 420 IPC, and the conduct of the petitioners indicated a pattern of behavior, leading to the dismissal of the criminal misc. petitions.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the criminal misc. petitions, finding no merit in the petitioners' challenge to the impugned FIRs.

ORDER

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 SBCRL MP 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

218/2017 04.09.2017

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

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 01.09.2021of Police Station Rawatsar, District Hanumangarh for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 406 and 506 IPC.

3. Brief facts relevant and essential for disposal of these criminal misc. petitions are noted herein below :-

SBCRLMP No.3125/2017

4. 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.

5. 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.

6. 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.

7. 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

8. 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 demanding the said due amount by the complainant/respondent No.2, the petitioners told him that if they receive Rs.49,50,000/-, they could get their bank account limit increased and would be able to repay his all due a