Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Dinesh Kumar Paliwal, J.
Neeraj Shrivastava v. The State of Madhya Pradesh & Another
Miscellaneous Criminal Case No. 11632 of 2019 (Jabalpur); Decided on 5.9.2023
(1) Criminal P. C., 1973 -- S. 482 -- scope of power -- High Court would not ordinarily embark upon inquiry to ascertain whether evidence is reliable or not -- inherent jurisdiction has to be exercised sparingly and carefully with caution -- at same time, High Court is empowered to prevent abuse of process of Court. (2013) 9 SCC 293, Criminal Appeal No. 2341 of 2023 (SC), (2013) 3 SCC 330, AIR 2013 SC 506 and 1992 SCC (Cri.) 426 followed. [Para 16
(2) Criminal P. C., 1973 -- S. 482 -- scope of power -- High Court can consider facts and material of case -- it can consider whether it is expedient and in interest of justice to permit prosecution to continue, or continuance of prosecution would be abuse of process of Court -- it can interfere when allegations in FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable that on their basis, no prudent person can ever reach just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against accused -- where criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where proceeding is maliciously instituted with ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on accused and with view to spite him due to private and personal grudge, power can be exercised and FIR can be quashed. Criminal Appeal No. 2341 of 2023 (SC), (2013) 9 SCC 293, (2013) 3 SCC 330, AIR 2013 SC 506 and 1992 SCC (Cri.) 426 followed. [Para 21
(3) Penal Code, 1860 -- Ss. 405 and 406 -- criminal breach of trust -- “entrustment” of property pivotal to constitute offence -- extends to entrustments of all kinds whether to clerks, servants, business partners or other persons, provided they are holding position of “trust” -- person who dishonestly misappropriates entrusted property contrary to terms of obligation imposed is liable for criminal breach of trust -- such act must not only be done dishonestly but also in violation of any direction of law or any contract, express or implied, relating to carrying out trust.
[Paras 25 & 26
(4) Penal Code, 1860 -- Ss. 415 and 420 -- fraudulent or dishonest inducement is essential ingredient of offence. [Para 28
(5) Penal Code, 1860 -- Ss. 464, 467 and 468 -- condition precedent for offence u/ss. 467 and 468 is forgery -- condition precedent for forgery is making false document (or false electronic record or part thereof) -- so-called forged document not in existence -- neither original seized, nor its copy on record -- petitioner cannot be said to have made and executed false document in collusion with other accused. (2009) 8 SCC 751 followed. [Para 36
(6) Penal Code, 1860 -- Ss. 405 and 415 -- both sections clearly prescribe “dishonest intention” as precondition for even prima facie establishing commission of said offences. [Para 38
(7) Criminal P. C., 1973 -- S. 482 -- Penal Code, 1860 -- Ss. 420, 406, 467 and 468/34 -- quashing of FIR -- applicant No. 1 borrowed money from complainant -- loan agreement executed -- postdated cheques issued -- cannot be said that petitioner/applicant in any way committed breach of trust or committed cheating with complainant -- no forged document seized -- no prima facie proof that any false or forged document has been made -- in absence of any such document, petitioner cannot be connected with forging of such document -- when document itself is not in existence, there is no forgery -- neither S. 467 nor S. 468 attracted -- mere violation of any term of loan agreement cannot give rise to criminal prosecution for cheating, breach of trust unless fraudulent or dishonest intention or misappropriation of property entrusted is shown right at beginning of transaction -- FIR quashed. AIR 2018 SC 2434 followed. [Paras 40, 43, 44 & 50
(8) Investigation -- duty of Investigation Officer -- expected to be vigilant while discharging duties -- he has to be fair, transparent -- his only endeavour should be to find out truth. [Para 46
(9) Penal Code, 1860 -- S. 420 -- imperative on part of prosecution/complainant to prima facie establish intention to cheat and/or to defraud complainant right from inception -- has to be prima facie established that due to such act of cheating, complainant suffered wrongful loss and same resulted in wrongful gain for accused -- absence of aforesaid legal position -- no proceeding permissible in eye of law. [Para 48
(10) Criminal P. C., 1973 -- S. 482 -- quashing of FIR -- as per agreement, in case of dispute or difference, it can be settled by Court of law or by referring matter to arbitrator -- FIR lodged instead of referring matter to arbitrator or filing civil suit -- is abuse of process of law -- FIR quashed. [Para 54
(11) Evidence Act, 1872 -- S. 45 -- opinion of handwriting expert -- weak type of evidence -- issue of genuineness of signature on agreement -- FIR ought not to have been allowed to be registered -- opinion of handwriting expert is relevant piece of evidence but not conclusive proof -- it is, after all, opinion evidence -- should be supported by reasons -- Court has to evaluate it like any other evidence. (2020) 3 SCC 794 followed. [Para 56
(12) Criminal P. C., 1973 -- S. 482 -- Penal Code, 1860 -- Ss. 420, 406, 467 and 468/34 -- quashing of FIR -- case involves determination of issues civil in nature -- FIR lodged almost after 21 months of execution of so-called agreement -- civil suit filed after more than 6 years 8 months of execution of said agreement -- no mention in agreement of showing of NOC by petitioner to complainant -- witnesses of agreement wife and close friend of complainant -- police has not collected any material except handwriting expert opinion that agreement bears signature of petitioner -- serious factual disputes purely of civil nature, for which civil suit is pending -- allowing criminal proceedings to continue would be nothing but abuse of process of law -- FIR quashed. AIR 2006 SC 2780, AIR 2000 SC 754, Criminal Appeal No. 932 of 2021 decided on 2.9.2021, (2015) 8 SCC 293 and 2022 CrLJ 231 followed. (2005) 10 SCC 336, AIR 2022 SC 5454, Ali AIR 2020 SC 626, (2020) 3 SCC 794, (2013) 11 SCC 673 and AIR 1981 SC 2085, (2003) 3 SCC 583, 2021 SCC Online SC 367, (2022) 7 SCC 124, Criminal Appeal No. 2340 of 2023 (SC), (2022) 1 SCC 555, K. Jagdish (2020) 14 SCC 552, (2009) 5 SCC 528, (2012) 10 SCC 155, (2022) SCC Online SC 820, 2023 SCC Online SC 379, 2023 Livelaw (SC) 642 and Criminal Revision No. 881 of 2018 decided on 22.7.2009 (Cal.) referred to. [Paras 59, 63 & 64
¼1½ naM çfØ;k lafgrk] 1973 & /kkjk 482 & 'kfä dh O;kfIr & mPp U;k;ky; lkekU;r% ;g vfHkfuf'pr djus ds fy, tk¡p ugha djsxk fd lk{; voyacuh; gS ;k ugha & varfuZfgr vf/kdkfjrk ferO;;rk ls rFkk lrdZrk lfgr lko/kkuh ls ç;qä dh tkuk gksrh gS & lkFk gh] mPp U;k;ky;- U;k;ky; dh çfØ;k dk nq:i;ksx jksdus ds fy, l'kä gSA ¼2013½ 9 ,l lh lh 293] nkafMd vihy Øa- 2341 lu~ 2023 ¼mPpre U;k½] ¼2013½ 3 ,l lh lh 330] , vkb vkj 2013 ,l lh 506 rFkk 1992 ,l lh lh ¼fØ-½ 426 vuqlfjrA ¼iSjk 16½
¼2½ naM çfØ;k lafgrk] 1973 & /kkjk 482 & 'kfä dh O;kfIr & mPp U;k;ky; çdj.k ds rF;ksa vkSj lkexzh ij fopkj dj ldrk gS & og fopkj dj ldrk gS fd D;k vfHk;kstu pyrs jgus nsuk lehphu vkSj U;k;fgr esa gS- vFkok vfHk;kstu pyrs jgus nsuk fof/k dh çfØ;k dk nq:i;ksx gksxk & tc çFke bfÙkyk fjiksVZ ;k ifjokn esa vfHkdFku brus csrqds vkSj LokHkkfodr% vlaHkkO; gksa fd muds vk/kkj ij dksbZ Hkh cqf)eku O;fä dHkh Hkh bl U;k;iw.kZ fu"d"kZ ij ugha igq¡p ldrk fd vfHk;qä ds fo:) dk;Zokgh djus dk i;kZIr vk/kkj gS- rc U;k;ky; gLr{ksi dj ldrk gS & tg‚a nkafMd dk;Zokgh lqçdVr% vln~Hkko ;qä gks vkSj@vFkok tgk¡ dk;Zokgh vfHk;qä ls çfr'kks/k ysus ds varjLFk gsrq ls rFkk futh vkSj O;fäxr Mkg ds dkj.k mls tkucw>dj rax djus dh –f"V ls lafLFkr dh xbZ gks- ogk¡ 'kfä ç;qä dh tk ldrh gS rFkk çFke bfÙkyk fjiksVZ vfHk[kafMr dh tk ldrh gSA nkafMd vihy Ø- 2341 lu~ 2023 ¼mPpre U;k-½] ¼2013½ 9 ,l lh lh 293] ¼2013½ 3 ,l lh lh 330] , vkb vkj 2013 ,l lh 506 rFkk 1992 ,l lh lh ¼fØ-½ 426 vuqlfjrA ¼iSjk 21½
¼3½ naM lafgrk- 1860 & /kkjk 405 rFkk 406 & vkijkf/kd U;kl Hkax & vijk/k xfBr djus ds fy, laifÙk dk ÞlkSaik tkukß fu.kkZ;d & bldk foLrkj lHkh çdkj ds lkSais tkus rd gksrk gS- pkgs og fyfidksa- lsodksa- dkjckj ds Hkkxhnkjksa ;k vU; O;fä;ksa dks gks- c'krsZ fd og ÞU;klß dk in /kkj.k djrs gksa & tks O;fä vfèkjksfir ck/;rk ds fuca/kuksa ds çfrdwy] U;Lr laifÙk dk csbZekuh ls nqfoZfu;ksx djrk gS og vkijkf/kd U;kl Hkax dk nk;h gksrk gS & ,slk —R; csbZekuh ls gh ugha vfirq U;kl dk;kZfUor djus ds laca/k esa fof/k ds fdlh funs'k ;k] vfHkO;ä ;k foof{kr] lafonk ds vfrØe.k esa fd;k tkuk vko';dA ¼iSjk 25 ,oa 26½
¼4½ naM lafgrk- 1860 & /kkjk 415 rFkk 420 & diViw.kZ ;k csbZekuh ls mRçsj.k vijk/k dk vfuok;Z la?kVd gSA ¼iSjk 28½
¼5½ naM lafgrk] 1860 & /kkjk 464- 467 rFkk 468 & /kkjk 467 vkSj 468 ds v/khu vijk/k ds fy, iqjksHkkO; 'krZ dwVjpuk gS & dwVjpuk ds fy, iqjksHkkO; 'krZ feF;k nLrkost ¼vFkok feF;k bysfDVª‚fud vfHkys[k ;k mldk Hkkx½ cukuk gS & rFkkdfFkr dwVjfpr nLrkost vfLrRo esa ugha & ewy u rks vfHkx`ghr] u mldh çfr gh vfHkys[k ij & ;kph }kjk vU; vfHk;qäx.k ds lkFk nqjfHklaf/k dj feF;k nLrkost cuk;k vkSj fu"ikfnr fd;k x;k ugha dgk tk ldrkA ¼2009½ 8 ,l lh lh 751 vuqlfjrA ¼iSjk 36½
¼6½ naM lafgrk] 1860 & /kkjk 405 rFkk 415 & nksuksa /kkjkvksa esa mä vijkèkksa dk fd;k tkuk çFke–"V~;k Hkh LFkkfir djus ds fy, ÞcsbZekuhiw.kZ vk'k;ß dks iqjksHkkO; 'krZ ds :i es Li"Vr% fofgr fd;k x;k gSA ¼iSjk 38½
¼7½ naM çfØ;k lafgrk] 1973 & /kkjk 482 & naM lafgrk] 1860 & /kkjk 420] 406 467 rFkk 468@34 & çFke bfÙkyk fjiksVZ dk vfHk[kaMu & vkosnd Ø- 1 us ifjoknh ls /ku m/kkj fy;k & _.k djkj fu"ikfnr & mÙkj fnukafdr pkSd tkjh & ;g ugha dgk tk ldrk fd ;kph@vkosnd us fdlh çdkj U;kl Hkax fd;k ;k ifjoknh ls Ny fd;k & dksbZ dwVjfpr nLrkost vfHkx`ghr ugha & dksbZ çFke–"V;k lcwr ugha fd dksbZ feF;k ;k dwVjfpr nLrkost cuk;k x;k & ,sls fdlh Hkh nLrkost ds vHkko esa- ;kph dks ,sls nLrkost dh dwVjpuk ls tksM+k ugha tk ldrk & tc Lo;a nLrkost gh vfLrRo esa ugha rks dksbZ dwVjpuk ugha & u /kkjk 467] u /kkjk 468 gh vk—"V & tc rd laO;ogkj ds vkjaHk esa gh diViw.kZ ;k csbZekuhiw.kZ vk'k; vFkok U;Lr laifÙk dk nqfoZfu;ksx ugh n'kkZ;k tk,] _.k djkj ds fdlh fuca/ku ds vfrØe.k ek= ls Ny] U;kl Hkax ds fy, nkafMd vfHk;kstu mn~Hkwr ugha gks ldrk & çFke bfÙkyk fjiksVZ vfHk[kafMrA , vkb vkj 2018 ,l lh 2434 vuqlfjrA ¼iSjk 40] 43] 44 ,oa 50½
¼8½ vUos"k.k & vUos"k.k vf/kdkjh dk drZO; & drZO;ksa dk fuoZgu djrs le; lrdZ jguk çR;kf'kr & mls fu"i{k] ikjn'khgksuk gksrk gS & mldh ,dek= ps"Vk lR; dk irk yxkus dh gksuk pkfg,A ¼iSjk 46½
¼9½ naM lafgrk] 1860 & /kkjk 420 & vkjaHk ls gh ifjoknh ds lkFk Ny djus vkSj vFkok mls diV@oafpr djus dk vk'k; çFke –"V;k LFkkfir djuk vfHk;kstui{k@ifjoknh ds fy, vfuok;Z & çFke–"V;k LFkkfir fd;k tkuk gksrk gS fd ,sls Ny ds dkj.k ifjoknh dks lnks"k gkfu gqbZ rFkk mlds ifj.kkeLo:i vfHk;qä dks lnks"k vfHkykHk gqvk & iwoksZä fof/kd fLFkfr dk vHkko & fof/k dh –f"V esa dksbZ dk;Zokgh vuqKs; ughaA ¼iSjk 48½
¼10½ naM çfØ;k lafgrk] 1973 & /kkjk 482 & çFke bfÙkyk fjiksVZ dk vfHk[kaMu & djkj ds vuqlkj] fookn ;k erHksn dh n'kk esa- fof/k ds U;k;ky; }kjk mls e/;LFk dks fufnZ"V dj lqy>k;k tk ldrk gS & ekeyk e/;LFk dks fufnZ"V djus ;k flfoy okn çLrqr djus ds ctk; çFke bfÙkyk fjiksVZ nkf[ky & fof/k dh çfØ;k dk nq:i;ksx gS & çFke bfÙkyk fjiksVZ vfHk[kafMrA ¼iSjk 54½
¼11½ lk{; vf/kfu;e] 1872 & /kkjk 45 & gLrys[k fo'ks"kK dh jk; & nqcZy çdkj dk lk{; & djkj ij gLrk{kj dh çkekf.kdrk dk fook|d & çFke bfÙkyk fjiksVZ jftLVªh—r djus ugha nh tkuk pkfg, Fkh & gLrys[k fo'ks"kK dh jk; lqlaxr lk{; gS ijarq fu.kkZ;d lcwr ugha & og- varr%- jk;-lk{; gS & dkj.kksa ls lefFkZr gksuk pkfg, & U;k;ky; dks mldk ewY;kadu vU; fdlh Hkh lk{; dh Hk‚afr gh djuk gksrk gSA ¼2020½ 3 ,l lh lh 794 vuqlfjrA ¼iSjk 56½
¼12½ naM çfØ;k lafgrk] 1973 & /kkjk 482 & naM lafgrk- 1860 & /kkjk 420] 406] 467 rFkk 468@34 & çFke bfÙkyk fjiksVdk vfHk[kaMu & çdj.k esa flfoy ç—fr ds fook|dksa dk vo/kkj.k varoZfyr & çFke bfÙkyk fjiksVZ rFkkdfFkr djkj ds fu"iknu ds yxHkx 21 ekl i'pkr~ nkf[ky & flfoy okn mä djkj ds fu"iknu ds 6 o"kZ 8 ekl ls vf/kd le; i'pkr~ çLrqr & ;kph }kjk ifjoknh dks vukifÙk çek.ki= fn[kk, tkus dk djkj esa dksbZ mYys[k ugha & djkj ds lk{kh ifjoknh dh iRuh rFkk ?kfu"B fe= & iqfyl us gLrys[k fo'ks"kK dh bl jk; ds vfrfjä fd djkj ij ;kph ds gLrk{kj gSa] dksbZ lkexzh ,df=r ugha dh & fo'kq)r% flfoy ç—fr ds rF;kRed fookn] ftuds fy, flfoy okn yafcr & nkafMd dk;Zokgh pyrs jgus nsuk fof/k dh çfØ;k ds nq:i;ksx ds flok; dqN ugha gksxk & çFke bfÙkyk fjiksVZ vfHk[kafMrA , vkb vkj 2006 ,l lh 2780] , vkb vkj 2000 ,l lh 754] nkafMd vihy Ø- 932 lu~ 2021 fu.khZr fnukad 2-9-2021- ¼2015½ 8 ,l lh lh 293 rFkk 2022 lhvkj ,y ts 231 vuqlfjrA ¼2005½ 10 ,l lh lh 336] , vkb vkj 2022 ,l lh 5454] , vkb vkj 2020 ,l lh 626] ¼2020½ 3 ,l lh lh 794] ¼2013½ 11 ,l lh lh 673 rFkk , vkb vkj 1981 ,l lh 2085] ¼2003½ 3 ,l lh lh 583] 2021 ,l lh lh v‚uykbu ,l lh 367] ¼2022½ 7 ,l lh lh 124] nkafMd vihy Ø- 2340 lu~ 2023 ¼,l lh½] ¼2022½ 1 ,l lh lh 555] ¼2020½ 14 ,l lh lh 552] ¼2009½ 5 ,l lh lh 528] ¼2012½ 10 ,l lh lh 155] ¼2022½ ,l lh lh v‚uykbu ,l lh 820] 2023 ,l lh lh v‚uykbu ,l lh 379] 2023 ykboy‚ ¼,l lh½ 642 rFkk nkafMd iqujh{k.k Ø- 881 lu~ 2018 fu.khZr fnukad 22-7-2009 ¼dy-½ fufnZ"VA ¼iSjk 59] 63 ,oa 64½
ORDER
1. This petition under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed by the petitioner to quash FIR No.279/2018 dated 20.4.2018 under sections 420, 406, 467, 468/34 of IPC and the entire proceedings initiated pursuant to charge sheet filed by police station Gorakhpur, Jabalpur against the petitioner.
2. The factual matrix of the case in nutshell is that complainant/ respondent No.2 i.e. Pratik Jain is a resident of House No.599, Gorakhpur, Jabalpur and runs business of construction work and also works as car dealer. It was alleged that in the month of April 2016 his cousin Bantu Jain (applicant No.2) along with applicant No.1 Neeraj Shrivastava, who is the relative of Bantu Jain, came to him and told that Neeraj Shrivastava runs Mining business at village Gosalpur, Tehsil Sihora and that he would make him as a partner with 50% share in the said business. It was also alleged that for becoming a partner, he was asked to pay a sum of Rs.80,00,000/- (Rupess: Eighty lakhs). On that he got ready to become a partner with the Neeraj Shrivastava in mining business. Thereafter, they executed a Joint Venture Agreement regarding partnership in Mines business and paid Rs.80,00,000/-(Rupess: Eighty lakhs) to Neeraj Shrivastava through RTGS and cash payment on the promise that Neeraj Shrivastava would make the complainant a partner in the Mines business and further an assurance was given that Neeraj Shrivastava would get the necessary Government permission to make him a partner in the Mines business. Later when he contacted Neeraj Shrivastava again, he showed him a Government letter/NOC allowing him to become a partner and thereafter Joint Venture Agreement was executed. Later it was found that applicant No.1 had given him a forged letter and had committed fraud with him and took a sum of Rs.80,00,000/- (Rupees: Eighty lakhs) from him and cheated and embezzled that amount. After investigation, charge sheet has been filed for commission of offence under sections 406, 420, 467,468/34 of IPC.
3. In this matter, it is an undisputed fact that petitioner No.1/applicant No.1 Neeraj Shrivastava has a valid Mining licence to mine iron ore over an area of 39.440 hectare situated at village Gosalpur, Tehsil Sihora, District Jabalpur and operates this mine under the name and style of M/s S.S. Enterprises.
4. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner has submitted that no Joint Venture Agreement was executed between petitioner/applicant Neeraj Shrivastava and complainant Pratik Jain. In Joint Venture Agreement, there is no mention of the fact that applicant/petitioner No.1 showed him any no objection certificate received from the Mining Department or Pratik Jain had loaned Rs.80,00,000/-(Rupess : Eighty lakhs) to the applicant. It is submitted that said Joint Venture Agreement is not a registered document and Pratik Jain never informed the Mining Department that he has entered into a Joint Venture Agreement with applicant No.1 Neeraj Shrivastava. It is submitted that whatsoever money alleged to have been given to Neeraj Shrivastava was not secured by any document. The Joint Venture Agreement (Annexure-A/3) is not a registered document. It is vehemently argued by learned senior counsel for the petitioners that in investigation, the so called no objection certificate/sanction order purportedly issued by the Government/Mining Department in favour of Neeraj Shrivastava was not seized from any of the parties and is not a part of the charge sheet. The entire case of the prosecution is that the Joint Venture Agreement (Annexure-A/3) was sent to hand-writing expert, who has opined that the signatures on the document are in the handwriting of the applicant. As no Joint Venture Agreement (Annexure-A/3) was entered into by Neeraj Shrivastava with complainant Pratik Jain, the signatures bearing on the said document (Annexure-A/3) are not in the handwriting of applicant Neeraj Shrivastava. The same are forged and Joint Venture Agreement (Annexure-
Civil disputes should not be framed as criminal offences when no fraudulent intent is evident, as it constitutes an abuse of legal processes.
Point of Law : Agreement was terminated by the complainant himself and the dispute before the Arbitrator was sought by the complainant himself. Therefore, there can be no question of an intention to ....
The court maintained that an FIR must not be quashed at an initial stage unless no prima facie case is established, even if the allegations suggest civil nature.
Breaches of commercial agreements do not constitute criminal offenses unless fraudulent intent is established at the outset, reinforcing that civil disputes should not be converted into criminal matt....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
