Jharkhand High Court
Jitendra Singh Rana @ Jeetu Rana @ ... vs State Of Jharkhand on 4 January, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr.M.P No. 1798 of 2017
1. Jitendra Singh Rana @ Jeetu Rana @ Jitendra Rana
2. Deepika Rana
3. Tilak Raj
4. Dalawar Singh @ D.R. Dadwal .... .... Petitioner(s).
Versus
1. State of Jharkhand
2. Rizwan Aslam .... .... Opposite Party(s)
------
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANDA SEN.
THROUGH : VIDEO CONFERENCING
------
FOR THE PETITIONER(S) : Mr. Ajay Kumar Sah, Advocate
FOR THE STATE : Mr. Rajesh Kumar Mishra, APP
FOR THE O.P No.2 : Mr. Shailesh, Advocate
------
03/04.01.2021
Heard learned counsel for the parties. The lawyer have no objection with
regard to the proceeding, which has been held through video conference today at
11.00 A.M. They have no complaint in respect to the audio and video clarity and
quality.
2. Petitioners by filing this application under Section 482 Cr.P.C prays for
quashing the FIR registered as Bank More P.S. Case No. 96 of 2017 under Section
406, 420/34 IPC.
3. Gist of FIR is that the petitioners had time to time purchased motor parts
from the informant, value of which stood at Rs. 1,00,25,127/-. The allegation is
that, out of the said amount only Rs. 30,07,538/- has been paid and the rest amount
is due. It has been alleged that in spite of repeated demands, the petitioners are
not paying the same, thus the informant has been cheated. This is the sum and
substance of the FIR.
4. Mr. Ajay Kumar Sah counsel for the petitioners submits that no criminal
offence is made out from bare perusal of the FIR. He submits that no ingredients
of offence under Sections 415, 405 IPC attracted, for which the penalty is under
Section 406, 420/34 IPC can be imposed. He submits that a case of money claim
has been given a colour of criminal case.
5. Mr. Shailesh counsel for the O.P No.2 submits that jurisdiction under
Section 482 Cr.P.C should be used sparingly. He submits that offence is made out
as the petitioners had promised to pay the due amount as early as possible but the
same has not been paid which amounts to cheating. He refers to the judgment of
the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Madhya Pradesh Vrs.
Surendra Kori reported in (2012) 10 SCC 155.
6. I have heard the parties. The gist of the FIR has been narrated above. As
per the judgment cited by the informant, I find that Hon'ble Supreme Court has
held that jurisdiction and power under Section 482 Cr.P.C should be used
sparingly. This court feels that the law should be applied on the facts of the case.
In this application, petitioners have prayed to quash the FIR and the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of State of Haryana and Ors. Vrs. Bhajan Lal report
in 1992 Suppl. (1) SCC 335 has held that when from bare perusal of the FIR no
offence is made out, continuance of the criminal proceeding is nothing but an
abuse of the process of law. In this case the Hon'ble Apex Court has laid down
the conditions on which the FIR can be quashed.
7. Further the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Anand Kumar Mahatta
Vrs. State (NCT of Delhi) reported in (2019) 11 SCC 706 has taken note of the
growing trend in business circle to convert a purely civil dispute into a criminal
case. In the aforesaid judgment, reliance was placed on Indian Oil corporation
Vrs. NEPC India Ltd. & Ors. reported in (2006) 6 SCC 736 wherein the Hon'ble
Supreme Court at paragraph 13 observed as follows:-
"13....... Any effort to settle civil disputes and claims,
which do not involve any criminal offence, by applying
pressure through criminal prosecution should be
deprecated and discouraged."
8. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid judgment has deprecated the
above action.
9. When I gone through the FIR I find that there is a long standing business
relationship between the parties and out of the dues of one crore and odd, thirty
lakhs have been paid by the petitioners and the rest amount is due. This FIR has
been lodged under Section 406, 420/34 IPC. No ingredients of the Section 405,
415 of IPC is made out from bare perusal of the FIR. Continuance of the FIR is
nothing but an abuse of the process of law and is only for recovering the money.
There is nothing in the FIR to suggest that there was any intention to cheat from
the very beginning of the transaction. A money claim has been given a colour of
a criminal offence.
10. Thus in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, relied upon
by this Court, I am inclined to allow this application by quashing the FIR being
Bank More P.S. Case No. 96 of 2017, corresponding to G.R. No. 1738 of 2017,
pending in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dhanbad.
11. Accordingly, the instant application stands allowed.
(ANANDA SEN , J)
anjali/ C.P 3
