Dinesh Kela vs State
2021 Latest Caselaw 76 Raj

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 3276/2019

1. Dinesh Kela S/o Shri Jugal Kishore Kela, Aged About 47 Years, B/c Maheshwari, R/o 214, Baldev Nagar, Jodhpur.

2. Shri Jugal Kishore Kela S/o Madanlal Ji Kela, Aged About 72 Years, B/c Maheshwari, R/o 214, Baldev Nagar, Jodhpur.

----Petitioners Versus

1. State, Through Pp

2. Rakesh Rathi S/o Tarachand Rathi, Aged About 40 Years, B/c Maheshwari, R/o Near Pushtikar School, Jalori Gate, Khandafalsa, Jodhpur

----Respondents

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ravindra Kumar Purohit through VC For Respondent(s) : Mr. A.R. Choudhary, PP.

Mr. Ranjeet Singh through VC.

            HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MEHTA

                                Judgment

Judgment pronounced on                 :::             05/ 01/2021
Judgment reserved on                   :::             14/12/2020

1. Heard learned counsel representing the parties. Perused the

material available on record.

2. The instant misc. petition has been filed by the accused

petitioners Dinesh Kela and Jugal Kishore Kela seeking quashing of

the FIR No.117/2019 registered at the Police Station Khandafalsa,

Jodhpur for the offences under Sections 420, 460 and 120B of the

IPC.

(2 of 5) [CRLMP-3276/2019]

3. Briefly stated the facts as alleged in the impugned FIR

lodged by the complainant-respondent No.2 are narrated herein

below for the sake of ready reference:

The FIR came to be lodged by the complainant Rakesh Rathi

at the Police Station Khandafalsa on 15.06.2019 alleging inter alia

that Dinesh Kela was known to him since long. He was involved in

money lending business. About a year and half ago, the

complainant required money for his personal and business

purposes on which, he asked Dinesh Kela for hand-loan of

Rs.1,00,000/-. Dinesh Kela gave him a sum of Rs.88,000/- after

deducting a sum of Rs.12,000/- towards future interest. At that

time, Dileep Rathi was also present with the complainant. It was

settled that loan would be repaid in ten installments of

Rs.10,000/- each. At the time of advancing loan, Dinesh Kela took

three blank signed cheques of the complainant payable on his

Karnataka Bank account and a signed stamp, etc. by way of

security. The complainant alleged that the intention of Dinesh Kela

was to cheat him right at the inception of the transaction. He

repaid five loan installments to Rakesh Rathi son of Nandkishore

Rathi after due affirmation from Dinesh Kela. Remaining five

installments were paid by the complainant personally to Dinesh

Kela. As per the complainant, he had repaid the entire amount of

loan to Dinesh Kela who, with the intention of fraud and cheating,

misused one of the cheques given by way of security by filling in a

fictitious amount of Rs.5,00,000/- and deposited the same in the

bank account of his father Shri Jugal Kishore Kela. It was further

alleged that Dinesh Kela was threatening that he would also

present the two other cheques and in this manner, he was

(3 of 5) [CRLMP-3276/2019]

attempting to blackmail the complainant. On the basis of this

report, the impugned FIR No.117/2019 came to be registered

against the petitioners for the offences under Sections 420, 460

and 120B of the IPC and investigation was commenced.

4. As per the factual report placed on record, the investigating

officer had, during the course of investigation, collected material

to the effect that there was no monetary transaction between the

complainant and Jugal Kishore Kela and that the cheque in

question had, as a matter of fact, been given by the complainant

Rakesh Rathi to the accused petitioner Dinesh Kela who misused it

by getting the same presented in his father's bank account by

filling in a fictitious amount of Rs.5,00,000/-.

5. Learned counsel Shri Ravindra Kumar Purohit representing

the petitioners placed reliance on the following judgments in

support of the contention that prima-facie ingredients of the

offences alleged are not made out against the petitioners from the

highest allegations as set out in the impugned FIR:

(i) Prof. R.K. Vijaysarthi & Anr. vs. Sudha Seetharam & Anr,

reported in 2019(2) R.Cr.D. 191 (SC);

(ii) M/s. Eicher Tractor Ltd. & Ors., vs. Harihar Singh & Anr.

reported in (2008)16 SCC 763;

(iii) Kiran Bhai Kapadiya & Ors. vs. State of Rajasthan &

Anr. reported in 2017 (4) R.Cr.D. 489 (Raj.); and

(iv) Vinod Natesan vs. State of Kerala & Ors., reported in

(2019)2 SCC 401; and

(4 of 5) [CRLMP-3276/2019]

6. After going through the ratio of the judgments relied upon by

the counsel representing the petitioners, I am of the opinion that

the facts discussed therein are totally distinguishable from the

facts of the case at hand. Counsel for the petitioners has failed to

convince the Court that there existed any kind of fiduciary

relationship between the petitioner Jugal Kishore and the

complainant Rakesh Rathi. The petitioner Dinesh Kela appeared

before the I.O. but he has not submitted any document or record

which can show even by semblance that the complainant had any

monetary dealing with the petitioner Jugal Kishore Kela so as to

justify the cheque of Rs.5,00,000/-. Thus, clearly an attempt has

been made by the accused petitioners to cheat the complainant by

misusing the cheque of the complainant by filling in a fictitious

amount of Rs.5,00,000/- which gives a strong indication regarding

conspiracy hatched by both of them. The investigating officer has

also collected evidence to the effect that the petitioner Dinesh

Kela is indulged in another similar incident of fraud by misusing

the cheque of one Mukesh Birla for which FIR No.89/2019 was

registered against him at the Police Station Khandafalsa.

7. After having heard and considered the submissions advanced

by the petitioners' counsel, the learned Public Prosecutor as well

as the complainant's counsel and, after going through the

impugned FIR and the factual report submitted on record, this

Court is of the opinion that the conclusion drawn by the

investigating officer regarding existence of convincing material

showing commission of offences under Sections 420, 406 and

120B IPC against the petitioners, is absolutely justified.

(5 of 5) [CRLMP-3276/2019]

8. In view of the discussion made herein above, I am of the

view that it is not a fit case warranting exercise of this Court's

inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing the

impugned FIR at the inception.

9. Accordingly, the misc. petition as well as stay application are

dismissed as being devoid of merit.

(SANDEEP MEHTA),J

12-Tikam/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)