Back
2019 Supreme(P&H) 158
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
INDERJIT SINGH, J.
RAJIV SHARMA - Appellant
Vs.
U.T. CHANDIGARH AND ANOTHER - Respondents
Criminal Miscellaneous (M) No. 34037 of 2011, 38419 of 2011, 2093 of 2012, 38817 of 2012
Decided On : 08-04-2019
D.R. Bansal, Adv., Gaurav G. S. Chauhan, Adv., Sukant Gupta, Adv., S.S. Brar, Adv.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the dispute between the parties is not of a civil nature and that the FIR shows the commission of cognizable offences. The court emphasized that the investigation revealed discrepancies in the claims made in the FIR, leading to the dismissal of the petitions for quashing the FIR.
Headnote:
FIR - Quashing of FIR under Sections 420 and 120-B IPC - [Sections 420, 120-B IPC] - The court found that the dispute between the parties is not of a civil nature and that the FIR shows the commission of cognizable offences. The investigation revealed that the companies mentioned in the FIR were not enrolled with the Common Wealth Games and the items were not supplied as claimed. The court held that the petitions for quashing the FIR were premature and dismissed them, stating that the findings of fact are to be given by the trial court after completion of the investigation.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners filed petitions under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing FIR No.203 dated 09.09.2011 under Sections 420 and 120-B IPC, registered at Police Station Industrial Area, Chandigarh. The FIR was filed by complainant Arvind Pal Singh Chawala against the petitioners for breach of trust, cheating, forgery, and criminal conspiracy.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the dispute between the parties is not of a civil nature and that the FIR shows the commission of cognizable offences. The investigation revealed that the companies mentioned in the FIR were not enrolled with the Common Wealth Games and the items were not supplied as claimed. The court held that the petitions for quashing the FIR were premature and dismissed them, stating that the findings of fact are to be given by the trial court after completion of the investigation.
Issues: The main issue was whether the FIR disclosed the commission of cognizable offences and whether the dispute between the parties was of a civil nature.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the dispute between the parties is not of a civil nature and that the FIR shows the commission of cognizable offences. The investigation revealed that the companies mentioned in the FIR were not enrolled with the Common Wealth Games and the items were not supplied as claimed. The court concluded that the petitions for quashing the FIR were premature and dismissed them.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the petitions for quashing the FIR, stating that the findings of fact are to be given by the trial court after completion of the investigation.
Inderjit Singh, J.
All the above-mentioned cases are taken up together as these have arisen from same FIR.
2. The petitioners have filed these petitions under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing FIR No.203 dated 09.09.2011 under Sections 420 and 120-B IPC, registered at Police Station Industrial Area, Chandigarh along with all the consequential proceedings.
3. Notice of motion was issued. Learned Addl. Public Prosecutor for U.T. Chandigarh as well as learned counsel for respondent No.2 appeared and contested the petitions. Though, none has put in appearance on behalf of petitioner Mahavir Singh, but as the point for determination in all the cases is the same, therefore, his petition is also being decided with other cases.
4. From the record, I find that in the present case, FIR has been got registered by complainant Arvind Pal Singh Chawala against the petitioners under Sections 420 and 120-B IPC. The contents of the FIR are as under:-
"To the SSP HQ. U.T. Chandigarh (UT) subject request for registration of case for breach of trust/cheating, forgery by way of criminal conspriacy against Mahabir Singh (Director) M/s Anchal Engineering Pvt. Ltd., Anirvan Singh Prop. M/s Advance Retail, Harjit Singh Prop. M/s G.R.D. Engineering and officer of Dena Bank Sector 7, Chandigarh and Sector 11, Panchakula namely Mrs. Neelam, Mr. S.S. Rawat, Mrs. Deepika and Mr. Waryam Singh for the reason mentioned below. Sir I beg to submit as under : -
1. That earlier M/s Anchal Engineering Pvt. Ltd. And M/s Nidhan Overases Pvt. Ltd. had some small dealing of business for the last about two years prior to August 2009. Mr. Mahabir Singh, M/s Anchal Engineering Pvt. Ltd. Somewhere at the end of July/beginning of August 2009 approached the undersined at his office at 8 MW Indl. Area Phase I, Chandigarh stating that he was having very good offer of gainful business of supplying stainless stell railing with installing work at Common Wealth game village New Delhi and also he had offer of supplying LG display racks for different showroom situated all over the country. He further disclosed that he had an offer of another gainful business of supply of canopies with assembly of the same at the sites at different places but he did not have funds to go for. He suggested to the undersigned that if he could invest if the orders could be taken in their names as undersigned lacks enough funds to go for it and further he assured that since that undersgined concern would be new to this job he would do the job of manufacturing, supplying and installing of stainless steel railings LG display racks and genset canopies and he could settle the terms firstly, the complainant company was reluctant as the work was quite new for them and there was no certainly of gains. Mr. Mahavir Singh who was accompanied by one another person (name not known) explained the plan of work stating that M/s Advance Retails owned by Sh. Anirvan Singh Delhi well known to him wanted to hire the services of some one who could finance the procurement supply of stainless steel railings and LG display racks with intallation at the respective sites and one other party M/s GRD Engineering owned by Harjit Singh who needed the supply of genset canopies with assembly use the site and Mahavir Singh further ensured the responsibilities and sincereity concerning the undersigned that he was awarded that the complainant company did not know of the technicalities of work and further it would be quite difficult for them to be at Delhi all the times to carry out but since he himself was going to gain out of this supply and installation of the material he would be devoting himself with sincereity, also stated that both the aforesaid parties were already known to him. He had been working for them and the risk of any loss was going to be narrow (taking further end) to the undersigned in these circumstances of such assurance compelled the undersigned to go ahead with the work.
2. I APS Chawla undersigned Director M/s Ni
