Borrowing money creates an obligation to repay; mere existence of a civil remedy does not justify quashing an FIR alleging cognizable offences.

Order :

GANESH RAM MEENA, J.

1. This criminal misc. petition under Section 528 of BNSS has been filed by the petitioners for quashing the FIR No.220/2024, registered at Police Station Bhusawar, District Bharatpur for the offences punishable under Sections 120B & 420 of IPC.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners have borrowed Rs. 7,00,000/- (7 lakh) from the complainant and the present criminal case has been registered by the complainant so as to pressurize the petitioners to repay the said amount. Counsel further submits that the amount of Rs. 7,00,000/- was received by the petitioner through a cheque payment and the complainant has remedy of civil suit for recovery of the said amount.

3. Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the prayer made in the petition.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the complainant submits that the petitioners asked the complainant to give them Rs. 7,00,000/- saying that his ornaments of value of about Rs. 12,00,000/- are mortgaged with the bank and because the time of repaying the payment to the bank is lapsing, the bank may forfeit the ornaments only for Rs. 7,00,000/- whereas, the ornaments are of Rs. 12,00,000/- and making payment they would get release the ornaments.

5. During course of the arguments the counsel for the petitioners was put a query whether the accused-petitioners are willing to pay the amount of Rs.7,00,000/- which was borrowed by them from the complainant? To which, counsel for the petitioners submits that the complainant may avail the remedy of civil suit for recovery of the said amount.

6. Considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioners as well as the learned Public Prosecutor assisted by learned counsel for the complainant and also perused the averments made in the FIR.

7. The offences alleged against the petitioners are of punishable under Sections 420 & 120B of IPC.

8. The cheating has been defined under Section 415 of IPC. Section 415 of IPC is quoted as under:-

Whoever, by deceiving any person, fraudulently or dishonestly induces the person so deceived to deliver any property to any person, or to consent that any person shall retain any property, or intentionally induces the person so deceived to do or omit to do anything which he would not do or omit if he were not so deceived, and which act or omission causes or is likely to cause damage or harm to that person in body, mind, reputation or property, is said to "cheat".

Explanation: A dishonest concealment of facts is a deception within the meaning of this section.

9. The law as regards the quashing of FIR has been settled in the case of State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal [1992 Supp (1) Supreme Court Cases 335], wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court has observed as follows:-

“102. In the backdrop of the interpretation of the various relevant provisions of the Code under Chapter XIV and of the principles of law enunciated by this Court in a series of decisions relating to the exercise of the extraordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent powers under Section 48 482 of the Code which 482 we have extracted and reproduced above, we give the following categories of cases by way of illustration wherein such power could be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently channelised and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised.

(1) Where the allegations made in the first information report or the complaint, even if they are taken at