Madhya Pradesh High Court
Tahir Jaki vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 1 April, 2022
Author: Sanjay Dwivedi
1
M.Cr.C. No.4496/2020
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
M.Cr.C. No.4496 of 2020
Tahir Jaki, S/o Mustafa Jaki,
aged about 24 years, by occupation :
Student, resident of 134,
H.B. Colony, Koh-e-fiza,
Police Station Koh-e-fiza,
Bhopal, District Bhopal.
....PETITIONER
Versus
1. The State of Madhya Pradesh,
Through Police Station Naryawali,
Sagar, District Sagar.
2. Lakahn Singh Rajput, S/o Late
Ganpat Singh Rajput, Aged 60 years,
Occupation : Government Contractor,
Resident of Village Moodra,
Jaruwakheda, Police Station Naryawali,
District Sagar.
....RESPONDENTS
Date of Order 01.04.2022
Bench Constituted Single Bench
Order delivered by Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay
Dwivedi, J.
Whether approved for .......
reporting
Name of counsels for the For Petitioner : Shri Manish Datt,
Senior Advocate with Shri Rohit
parties
Sharma, Advocate
For Respondent No.1/State : Shri
Prakash Gupta, Panel Lawyer.
2
M.Cr.C. No.4496/2020
Reserved on : 12.01.2022
Delivered on : 01.04.2022
ORDER
This petition has been filed under Section 482 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing the FIR registered vide
Crime No.168/2019 at Police Station Naryawali, District Sagar,
for the offence punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 120-
B of the Indian Penal Code.
2. Laconic facts of the case are that the police of Police
Station Naryawali, District Sagar has registered a case vide Crime
No.168/2019 for the offence punishable under Sections 420, 467,
468 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code against the present
petitioner and the co-accused (the father of the present petitioner)
and also filed the charge-sheet in the Court of Sagar where the
trial is being committed. The prosecution has come up with a case
that an amount of Rs.1,12,000,00/- was given through cheques in
the name of co-accused namely Mustafa Jaki, the father of the
present petitioner. Co-accused Mustafa Jaki is the proprietor of
Tahir Trading Company, Bhopal. The complainant namely Lakhan
Singh is a Government Contractor in the Public Works
Department. He was awarded a contract by the Government and
for completing the said contract needed D.I. Pipe (Ductile Iron
Pipe K7 Pipes) and for which the accused persons including the
present petitioner made a contact to the complainant and assured
him to supply the required D.I. Pipe within 22 to 25 days after
receiving the payment and also gave their approval by putting
M.Cr.C. No.4496/2020
signature and seal over the work order. Relying upon the
assurance given by the present petitioner and his father (co-
accused), the complainant issued some cheques of his account of
Allahabad Bank amounting to Rs.24,00,000/- dated 22.11.2018,
Rs.3,00,000/- dated 14.12.2018, Rs.10,00,000/- dated 24.12.2018,
Rs.5,00,000/- dated 15.02.2019, Rs.15,00,000/- dated 18.02.2019,
Rs.25,00,000/- dated 27.03.2019 and Rs.30,00,000/- dated
28.03.2019, total amounting to Rs.1,12,000,00/-. The said amount
got deposited in the account of co-accused Mustafa Jaki, the father
of the present petitioner.
However, despite receiving the total amount, the petitioner
not supplied the required pipe and procrastinated the complainant
by giving false assurance that very soon it would be supplied but
from March, 2019 till May, 2019 no material was supplied to the
complainant then he demanded his money back. The co-accused
Mustafa Jaki, the father of the present petitioner, issued a cheque
amounting to Rs.92,00,000/- of Axis Bank, Branch Koh-e-fiza,
Bhopal, but after presenting the said cheque for encashment it got
dishonoured with an endorsement that no sufficient fund is
available in the account of drawer. It is also informed that the
signature over the cheque does not tally with the signature of
account holder. Thereafter, the complainant made a complaint
alleging therein that he has been defrauded by the present
petitioner and his father (co-accused) and then offence was
registered. During the course of investigation, the police collected
documentary evidence and other material relating to the alleged
offence and thereafter filed the charge-sheet.
M.Cr.C. No.4496/2020
3. The petitioner has filed this petition asking for
quashing the FIR mainly on the ground that even after considering
the contents of FIR, no offence is not made out and even after
considering the material produced by the prosecution by way of
charge-sheet, the same do not make out a case against the present
petitioner. It is alleged that the petitioner is a Charted Accountant
and has been falsely implicated in the case.
4. Learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner
has placed reliance upon the decisions reported in AIR 1974 SC
1560 (Anil Kumar Bose v. State of Bihar), AIR 1992 SC 604
(State of Haryana v. Bhajanlal), (2000) 3 SCC 693 (G.V. Rao v.
L.H.V. Prasad and others), (2000) 4 SCC 168 (Hridaya Ranjan
Prasad Verma and others v. State of Bihar and another) and
(2003) 3 SCC 11 (Ajay Mitra v. State of M.P. and others). He
has submitted that the Supreme Court in case of Bhajanlal (supra)
has laid down the yardsticks for quashing the FIR in paragraph-
108 in its judgment and according to the said yardsticks, if
contents of FIR are treated to be true at their face value and
accepting the same in their entirety, even then prima facie no case
is made out against the present petitioner. He has further
submitted that the present case falls within the yardsticks laid
down by the Supreme Court in case of Bhajanlal (supra) and
therefore, the FIR can be quashed.
5. After hearing the submission of the learned senior
counsel for the petitioner and perusal of FIR, I am not convinced
with the submission made by the counsel for the petitioner for the
reason that the contents of FIR indicate that the father of the
M.Cr.C. No.4496/2020
present petitioner and the petitioner himself visited the
complainant, assured him to supply D.I. Pipe but for no reason
they did not do so and even after receiving the amount in their
account they did not supply the said material. It clearly indicates
that from very inception they induced the complainant with a
dishonest intention to cheat him and deceived him by taking
money from him and as such, as per the definition of cheating as
provided under Section 415 of the Indian Penal Code, the conduct
of the petitioner and his father (co-accused) comes within the
definition of cheating as they fraudulently or dishonestly induced
the complainant taking money from him with an assurance to
supply D.I. Pipe but that assurance was not fulfilled even no
reason was given as to why the said goods could not be supplied
and when money was demanded back, they issued a cheque which
was also dishonoured because in the said account no sufficient
amount contained in the cheque was available. Therefore, the
contents of FIR prima facie make out a case of cheating and also
allegation with regard to making a forged signature not tallied
with the signature of account holder, the other offences and
ingredients are also available and as such, in my opinion, this is
not the stage where on the basis of available material in the
charge-sheet, FIR can be quashed. The judgment on which the
petitioner is relying upon are not applicable in the present case for
the reason that the ingredients of alleged offence are available on
record and cheating is apparent by inducing the complainant
giving a false assurance taking money from him. Thus, the
petition for quashing the FIR is in fact not fit to be admitted and in
M.Cr.C. No.4496/2020
my opinion, the submission made by the counsel for the petitioner
does not contain any merit and as such, it is without any
substance.
6. Ex consequentia, the petition is accordingly,
dismissed.
(Sanjay Dwivedi)
Judge
ac/-
ANIL CHOUDHARY
2022.04.01
18:17:39 +05'30'
