Jharkhand High Court

Rahul Raghuvanshi vs State Of Jharkhand on 28 September, 2021

             IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                              Cr. Rev. No. 963 of 2019
             1. Rahul Raghuvanshi
             2. Jagdish Singh Raghuvanshi @ Jagdish Raguvanshi ... Petitioners
                                        Versus
            1. State of Jharkhand
            2. Md. Tufail Ansari                         ...          ... Opp. Parties
                                           ---

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR

---

             For the Petitioner             : Mr. Sidhartha Roy, Advocate
             For the State                  : A.P.P.
             For the Complainant            : None
                                           ---

The matter was taken up through Video Conferencing. Learned counsel for the parties had no objections with it and submitted that the audio and video qualities are good.

---

6/28.09.2021: Heard learned counsel for the petitioners/revisionists and learned counsel for the State. However, in spite of subsisting valid Vakalatnama, nobody appears on behalf of the complainant.

Present application has been filed for quashing of the order dated 03.07.2019 passed in Complaint Case No.168 of 2014 by learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Ranchi by which discharge petition filed under Section 245 Cr.P.C. has been rejected.

The criminal case has been lodged by filing complaint being Complaint Case No.168 of 2014, making allegation against the petitioners that they have cheated the complainant by providing fake paint. Although he has been charged for Nerolac Paint. On filing complaint petition, the complainant has been assaulted.

After considering the complaint petition and the witness produced, the court below has taken cognizance and on summoned, the revisionists have appeared and filed for discharge, which has been dismissed vide order dated 03.07.2019, which is impugned in the present petition.

Counsel for the revisionists has relied upon the judgment reported in the case of Rashmi Jain vs. State of U.P. (2014) 13 SCC 533, especially paragraph Nos.6 and 7, which is quoted herein below:

"6. To take the complaint out of the realm of a purely civil dispute, it is maliciously alleged in the complaint that when Respondent 2 approached the appellant for payment, the appellant stated as follows:

"On 22-3-2009, the applicant met the accused in the market of Bazarganj Saraitareen and asked for his balance amount, but the accused in the presence of two other persons flatly refused to pay the same and threatened the applicant that if he ever asked for the payment again he will be killed and stated that you don't know me. I have not paid to the high and mighty people, who are you. I had to usurp your money and I had done so. Thereafter she went in a car."

In our opinion, the aforesaid averment has been made only to foist criminal liability on the appellant by converting a purely civil dispute into criminal act, alleged to have been committed by the appellant. The allegations are absurd and outlandish on the face of it; firstly, the appellant is a lady, a widow, who was not accompanied by anybody else at the time of the alleged occurrence; secondly, she, though being a resident of Delhi, misbehaved with number of high and mighty parties with whom she had earlier transacted business at Moradabad. In our opinion, these are allegations which on the face of it, cannot be taken seriously by any reasonable person. The High Court, in our opinion, has committed jurisdictional error in dismissing the criminal petition filed by the appellant on the ground that it involves disputed questions of fact, which can only be gone into by the trial court.

7. The fact that the dispute involved between the parties is purely civil in nature and has, in fact, been admitted in the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of Respondent 2. In Para 5.1, it has been stated as follows:

"5.1 That the contents of Para 5.1 are wrong. Hence denied. The complaint clearly disclose the commission of criminal offence. It is correct that the dispute was initially pertaining to commercial one, however this commercial dispute has been converted into criminal one later on."

Clearly, it is evident that the utterances which are attributed to the appellant have been inserted in the complaint with a malicious intent to convert a purely civil dispute into a criminal offence."

In the case of Satya Binaik @ Satya Banaik vs. State of Jharkhand reported in 2015 SCC OnLine Jhar 1386, this Court while considering the trust which would determine as to whether a criminal case would also lie in case of a civil wrong held as follows:-

"Thus what would fall from the judicial pronouncement quoted above is that there has to be dishonest intention from the very inception or in other words that an intention to deceive from the very beginning of the transaction would be a pre-requisite in launching a criminal prosecution. As has been indicated above the averments made in the complaint petition coupled with surrounding circumstances as well as those enumerated in the plaint as well as the legal notice ssued on behalf of the opposite party No. 2 can only lead to a conclusion that the absence of deception from the very inception is stark on the face of it and furthermore even if the entire allegations are taken to be true no criminal liability can be fastened upon the petitioner. For the same fact and same allegation the ingredients of a civil wrong and a criminal offence can be present and both proceedings can continue. But the true test is to determine as to whether the complaint petition discloses an element of cheating or breach of trust or for that matter any offence for which the accused can be criminally prosecuted. The absence of any criminal intent in the complaint petition is palpable on the face of it and heaping a criminal liability without making out a criminal offence is not permissible in the eye of law. The complainant-opposite party no. 2 has already initiated a title suit for specific performance of contract and the allegation in the complaint petition also reveals that the complainant- opposite party no. 2 has rightly opted for the only forum available to him in the face of the allegations for redressal of his grievance."

Referring to the above judgment of the Apex Court as well this Court, it has been submitted that now a days, it is tendency to convert the civil case into criminal case and further to constitute the offence of cheating, criminal intention is very necessary element.

It has been further submitted that necessary witnesses have not been examined and as such, there is no sufficient evidence for framing of the charge. It has been further submitted that complaint has also been made under Sections 420 and 406 of the Indian Penal Code but the court below has refused to take cognizance under those Sections and rest of the allegation is attendum just to substantiate the allegation of criminality.

On the other hand counsel for the State has opposed the prayer and has submitted that the court below has taken cognizance for the offence under Sections 323, 341, 504, 506/34 of the Indian Penal Code.

The above offences are the offence of fighting and assault alleged by the complainant, which has been supported by the witnesses. It is not the case of cheating arising out money transaction between the parties. Thus, the very contention of the petitioners is against the material and allegation on the record.