The High Court of Jharkhand dismissed the petition which was filed for quashing the criminal proceedings in a case of non-repayment of loan and ruled that allegations in the case involving the flat purchase and loan transactions were not suppressed, a prima facie case existed, and quashing the FIR was not warranted, and CCTV cameras must be installed in all police stations.
Brief Facts:
The petitioner was entrusted to invest in a property and the accused person had offered to sell flats at lower prices later on one mortgage loan agreement was prepared. During COVID–19, the accused person had demanded money from the complainant on the pretext that work was not stopped. On a surprise visit, the complainant found that the construction of the project is comparatively very slow as per the agreement between the parties and, therefore, requested to cancel the booking and requested the accused to return the amount with interest after much persuasion, the accused are ready to return the amount. The accused gave cheques for the repayment which were dishonored. The petitioner filed the petition for quashing the entire criminal proceedings and prohibits the respondent not to giving effect to two agreements and to return signed cheques to the petitioner.
Contentions of the Petitioner:
The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner contended that the petitioners are innocent and have been falsely implicated in the case and submitted that the respondent approached the petitioners to purchase the flats at a concessional rate and thereafter offered to give a loan by a separate agreement to the petitioner and Memorandum of understanding was signed between the petitioner and the respondent. He further submitted that the petitioners were detained by the police and on coercion, the MoU was signed by the petitioners. He further contended that the CCTV footage is not available, as only the capacity of the camera is preserving the same for only ten days and the same is not in accordance with the mandates of the Hon’ble Supreme Court.
Contentions of the Respondent:
The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent contended that both the parties signed the MoU and were examined by the police. He submitted that the footage of CCTVs was not available and no case of interference was made out. He contended that the loan amount was repaid, however, the amount with regard to the flat was not returned and there is no progress in the construction of the said flat. He further argued that on one stamp paper for the loan agreement, both the petitioner's and respondent's signatures are there but for the same agreement on another stamp paper, the petitioner's signature is not there which suggests that only to manipulate the things and to make out a case, the case has been filed. He further contended that once the cheque is issued in favor of any of the parties, it will be presumed that the debt is there.
Observations of the Court:
The court observed that two transactions one with regard to the purchase of flats and one of advancing the loan to respondent and the facts have not been suppressed by the respondent, the allegations are there. The court finds that statements have been made that the Notary Public namely was examined and he has disclosed that both the parties have appeared before him and thereafter the said MoU was signed.
The court further observed that only to evade such court proceedings as a safeguard, the complaint case has been filed by the petitioners and these petitioners are also having other cases with other parties and in view of that it has been stated that they used to file and contest the cases by way of filing the cases. The court ruled that the complaint has to be read as a whole and if on consideration of the allegations in the light of the statements made on oath or in the FIR and the ingredients of the offense or offenses are disclosed and there is no material to show that the FIR is mala fide, frivolous or vexatious, in that event there would be no justification for interference by the High Court and criminality is made out and the matter is also civil in nature, both the cases can go simultaneously.
The court further ruled that quashing of the FIR of the present case is not made out, in view of the above discussions as a prima facie case is made out against the petitioners. The court directed the police to ensure that CCTV cameras are installed in each and every police station. It shall be also ensured that no part of a Police Station is left uncovered and it must be installed at all entry and exit points and the equipment installed must be able to store data for 18 months.
The decision of the Court:
The court dismissed the petition.
Case Title: Propertymen Realty Pvt. Ltd. Vs. The State of Jharkhand
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi
Case No.: W.P.(Cr.) No. 402 of 2023
Advocate for the Applicant: Mr. Indrajit Sinha, Mr. Ajay Kumar Sah, Mr. Rishav Kuma
Advocate for the Respondent: Mr. Binit Chandra, Mr. Amit Kumar, Ms. Sonal Sodhani, Mr. N. Parth Sarthi
Read Judgment @LatestLaws.com
Picture Source :
