Back
2021 Supreme(Raj) 2402
RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
Pushpendra Singh Bhati, J.
Nirmal Kamra & Ors. - Appellants
Versus
State of Rajasthan & Ors. - Respondents
Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 2598 of 2021
Decided On : 13-07-2021
Mr. Ratish Bhatnagar, for the Appellant; Mr. Mahipal Bishnoi, PP, Mr. BS Rathore, for the Respondent.
Criminal proceedings cannot be initiated for civil disputes unless fraudulent intent is established at the time of the transaction.
Headnote:
Quash - FIR - Section 482 Cr.P.C. - The court discussed the principles governing the quashing of FIRs under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., emphasizing that criminal proceedings cannot be initiated for mere civil disputes unless fraudulent intent is established.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought to quash an FIR alleging cheating related to property transactions, claiming the dispute was civil in nature and lacked fraudulent intent.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the allegations did not establish the necessary mens rea for cheating, indicating that the case was a civil dispute improperly framed as a criminal complaint.
Issues: Whether the FIR alleging cheating could be quashed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. due to the absence of fraudulent intent.
Ratio Decidendi: The court reiterated that mere inability to return a loan does not constitute cheating unless fraudulent intent is shown from the outset of the transaction.
Result: The misc. petition is dismissed.
ORDER
1. In wake of second surge in the COVID-19 cases, abundant caution is being maintained, while hearing the matters in Court, for the safety of all concerned.
2. Counsel for the petitioner(s) has preferred this Misc. petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for the following relief:-
"The F.I.R. No. 122/2021, Police Station - J.N.V. Colony, Bikaner may kindly be quashed and set aside qua the petitioners and the police-authority/investigating agency may be directed not to harass the petitioners in relation to the said F.I.R. to secure the ends of justice."
3. The factual matrix of the case in brief is that the complainant submitted a written report to the effect that after his retirement from Government service he invested all his retiral dues with the help of present petitioner(s) in the present properties.
4. Counsel for the petitioner has drawn attention of this Court towards first agreement (Annex.2) executed between the parties, which was entered on 01.11.2017 in lieu of which petitioner(s) received Rs.30,00,000/- lacs as security and mortgaged plot Nos.34, 35, 36, 37, 38 & 39 (06 in nos.), total measuring 11220 Sq. Feet, situated at Laxmi Vihar, Udrasar, Bikaner with the present complainant.
5. Thereafter, counsel for the petitioners have drawn attention of this Court to second agreement dated 30.04.2018 whereby further an amount of Rs.20,00,000/- was taken in lieu of plot Nos. 75, 76, 77 & 78 (04 in nos.) total measuring 6000 Sq. ft. in a residential plan "Laxmi Vihar", Chak-11 B.S.M., Udasar, Bikaner from the present complainant.
6. Counsel for the petitioner(s), thereafter, sold a farm house through an agreement, which is Annex-3.
7. Counsel for the petitioner(s) submits that part-payment was accepted in lieu of agreements on 01.11.2015 and rest of the payment was nullified in lieu of earlier due payment.
8. Counsel for the petitioner argued that criminal case cannot be registered in order to recover disputed amount from a party and has relied upon the judgment passed by Hon'ble Apex court in Satishchandra Ratanlal Shah Vs. State of Gujarat & Another in SLP (CRL.) No.5223 of 2018, decided on 03.01.2021.
"The mere inability of the appellant to return the loan amount cannot give rise to a criminal prosecution for cheating unless fraudulent or dishonest intention is shown right at the beginning of the transaction, as it is this mens rea which is the crux of the offence. Even if all the facts in the complaint and material are taken on their face value, no such dishonest representation or inducement could be found or inferred.
15. Moreover, this Court in a number of cases has usually cautioned against criminalizing civil disputes, such as breach of contractual obligations [refer to Gian Singh v. State of Punjab, (2012) 10 SCC 303]. The legislature intended to criminalize only those breaches which are accompanied by fraudulent, dishonest or deceptive inducements, which resulted in involuntary and inefficient transfers, under Section 415 of I PC."
9. Counsel for the petitioner(s) has relied upon judgment passed by Hon'ble Apex court in The Commissioner of Police & Ors. Vs. Devender Anand & Ors. in Criminal Appeal No. 834 of 2017, decided on 08.08.2019.
" 4.1 Even considering the nature of allegations in the complaint, we are of the firm opinion that no case is made out for taking cognizance of the offence under Section 420/34 I PC. The case involves a civil dispute and for settling a civil dispute, the criminal complaint has been filed, which is nothing but an abuse of the process of law."
10. Counsel for the petitioner(s) has relied upon the judgment passed by Hon'ble Apex court in Manoj Kumar Sood & Anr. Vs. State of Jharkhand in Special Leave to Appeal (CRL.) No. 1274/2021, decided on 19.03.2021.
"Wherein it has been settled by a plethora of decisions of this Court that criminal proceedings are not for realization of disputed dues"
Counsel for the petitioner(s) has relied upon the judgment passed by this Court in Gopal Singh & Ors. Vs. Sta
