IMPORTANT POINT
The court established that a continuing cause of action can extend the limitation period for filing a complaint, and that prima facie evidence of criminal breach of trust was sufficient to uphold the charges against the applicant.

JUDGMENT :

Hon'ble Mayank Kumar Jain, J.

1. Heard Mr. Manish Tiwari, learned Senior Counsel for the applicant, Ms. Swati Agrawal Srivastava, learned Counsel for the opposite party no. 2, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State.

2. Perused the record.

3. Present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing the charge-sheet dated 23.09.2019 along with cognizance order dated 20.11.2019 as well as the entire proceedings of Case No. 2197 of 2019 in Case Crime No. 87 of 2019, under Sections 406, 323, 506 I.P.C. P.S. Knowledge Park, District Gautam Budha Nagar, pending in the court of learned Civil Judge, F.T.C., Gautam Budha Nagar. It is also prayed to stay the further proceeding of aforesaid case during pendency of the present application.

4. The case of the prosecution as set out in the first information report is as under :-

(i) The informant Venugopal Subramanium Kartik lodged an F.I.R. against the applicant with the allegation that on the basis of an oral agreement in the year 2013, between the first informant and the applicant, it was agreed that the first informant would lend Rs. 55,00,000/-to the applicant. The applicant would pay Rs. 6,00,000/-as interest per annum on the aforesaid amount.

(ii) The entire principal amount of Rs. 55,00,000/-was to be refunded in the span of five years.

(iii) The first informant transferred Rs. 55,00,000/-through RTGS from the joint account held in his and his spouse’s name.

(iv) The applicant did not pay the interest as agreed upon. Whenever the first informant demanded his money along with agreed interest, she would promise that she would return the money in near future.

(v) On 12.02.2019, the first informant along with his wife approached the applicant to refund their money. The applicant started using abusive language against them. 2-3 unknown persons were also present there. The applicant along with them started assaulting the first informant and his wife. They also threatened to kill them if they approach the applicant ever again to ask for money.

(vi) Thus, the applicant committed fraud and usurped the money of the first informant. She committed criminal breach of trust and dishonestly misappropriated the money.

5. Mr. Manish Tiwari, learned Senior Counsel for the applicant submitted that all the allegations made in the FIR are false and baseless. Master mind behind the entire story is Suchitra Sharma, who is husband of the applicant. The dispute between the applicant and her husband is the genesis behind the present proceedings. In order to furnish financial consideration for the purchase of a property, the applicant took loan from the informant and in a timely and routine manner remitted the installments as and when it became due. It is further submitted that when the applicant was in need of some money to meet financial obligation, her husband Suchitra Sharma volunteered to help her out and as such it is he who had approached the informant and proposed that in case the opposite party no. 2 advances the said loan to the applicant, the applicant would be willing to keep her jewellery, which would cover a major portion of the loan amount as security with him and balance amount shall be returned by the applicant at the earliest. The applicant through her husband asked opposite party no. 2 to keep her jewellery with him in part satisfaction of the loan availed and the balance amount of money was returned by the applicant through her husband in cash, therefore, no outstanding amount remains accruable against the applicant. The husband of the applicant returned the amount of Rs. 5,00,000/-in December, 2015 and further amount of Rs. 5,00,000/- in March, 2016 in full and final settlement of the loan.

6. Learned Senior Counsel for the applicant vehemently argued that the present proceedings have been initiated after a lapse of almost six years. It is also submitted that the husband of the applicant Suchitra Sharma was booked under Section 151 Cr.P.C. on account of assaul