Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Gaurav Parikh vs State Of Rajasthan on 17 October, 2022
Bench: Pushpendra Singh Bhati
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 1192/2021
1. Gaurav Parikh S/o Bhadreshbhai Parikh, Aged About 31
Years, Occupation- Business, B/c Parikh, R/o Crave
International 157, Village Bhojpara At Kardej, Tehsil And
District Bhavnagar, Gujarat.
2. Bhareshbhai Parikh S/o Ghanshyamlal, Aged About 57
Years, Occupation- Business, B/c Parikh, R/o Crave
International 157, Village Bhojpara At Kardej, Tehsil And
District Bhavnagar, Gujarat.
----Petitioners
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
2. Sh. Mangilal S/o Bhakraram Bishnoi, At Mamta Milk Dairy
Pvt. Ltd. Fojji Road, Golasan, Sanchore, Dist. Jalore,
Rajasthan.
----Respondents
For Petitioners : Mr. Sunil Kotai on VC
Mr. Teja Ram
For Respondents : Mr. Mohd. Javed Gauri, PP
Mr. Raju Singh, S.I, P.S. Sanchore
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI
Judgment
Reserved on 13/10/2022
Pronounced on 17/10/2022
1. This Criminal Misc. Petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has
been preferred claiming the following reliefs:
"(A) Your Lordships may be pleased to admits this
petition.
(B) Your Lordships may be pleased to quash and set-aside the
impugned F.I.R. and further proceedings bearing C.R. No.I-
0306/2019, dated 14-07-2019 registered before Sanchore Police
Station, Dist-JALORE (Rajasthan).
(C) Your Lordships may be pleased to pass such other
and further orders as may be deemed just and proper."
(Downloaded on 18/10/2022 at 09:07:41 PM)
(2 of 4) [CRLMP-1192/2021]
2. Brief facts of the case, as placed before this Court by the
learned counsel for the petitioners, are that the present petitioners
approached the complainant-private respondent's Company,
Mamta Dairy Pvt. Ltd., in the year 2018 and expressed interest in
purchasing milk from him, to which an oral agreement for a period
of 6 months, with certain conditions, was entered into between
the parties. With respect to such oral agreement, a total of 8
tankers of milk were sent to the present petitioners. It is also the
case of the complainant that out of the said 8 tankers, the first
tanker of milk was delivered on 20.08.2018, whereafter, additional
tankers were also sent as per the aforesaid oral agreement; and
against such delivery certain payments were made; and that the
last few tankers of milk were sent by trucks bearing Registration
Nos. RJ 46 G.J. 1779, RJ 08 GJ 1838, GJ 02 VV 6000 and GJ 02
VV 9500, with the condition that at the time of delivery, the
requisite payments shall be made immediately; however, as per
the complainant, the total amount made against the said delivery
of aforesaid milk tankers totalled Rs.17,88,329.60/- which was not
paid by the present petitioners. Thereafter, as per the
complainant, the petitioners started purchasing milk from some
other third party, in breach of the conditions of the
aforementioned oral agreement between the parties.
Consequently, the complainant-respondent no.2 lodged an FIR
bearing no. 0306/2019 for the offences under Sections 420 and
406 IPC before Sanchore Police Station on 14.07.2019.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the matter
prima facie is purely of a civil nature, as the parties were engaged
in civil transactions, and in case if at all there was any liability, it
(Downloaded on 18/10/2022 at 09:07:41 PM)
(3 of 4) [CRLMP-1192/2021]
the private respondent may file a civil suit for the same, and not a
criminal case.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submitted that
even at the stage when the FIR is being challenged, the court can
entertain the petitioner under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of
the charge-sheet.
5. In support of the submissions so made, learned counsel for
the petitioners placed reliance on the judgments rendered by the
Hon'ble Apex Court in the cases of Thermax Limited Vs. K.M.
Johny (2011) 13 SCC 412, Joseph Salvaraj A. Vs. State of
Gujarat (2011) 7 SCC 59, Medmeme, Llc Vs. Ihorse Bpo
Solution Pvt. Ltd. (2018) 13 SCC 374, Prof R.K.
Vijayasarathy & Anr. Vs. Sudha Seetharam & Anr. SLP
(CRL) No. 1434 of 2018 decided on 15.02.2019, Anand Kumar
Mohatta Vs. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) Department of
Home (2019) 11 SCC 706, Vinod Natesan Vs. State of
Kerala (2019) 2 SCC 401, Vijay Kumar Ghai Vs. State of
West Bengal (2022) 7 SCC 124, and Wyeth Limited & Ors.
Vs. State of Bihar Criminal Appeal No. 1224 of 2022 decided
on 11.08.2022. He further placed reliance on the judgment
rendered by the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Chetan
Snathbhai Mehta Vs. Bhupendrabhai Purohit, Criminal
Miscellaneous Application No. 3650 of 2011 decided on
23.11.2011.
6. On other hand, learned Public Prosecutor appearing with the
concerned S.I. Shri Raju Singh opposed the submissions made on
behalf of the petitioners and submitted that in the factual report
as also in the concluded investigation, the prosecution has found
that it was a deliberate attempt made by the petitioners to breach
(Downloaded on 18/10/2022 at 09:07:41 PM)
(4 of 4) [CRLMP-1192/2021]
the conditions of the agreement, apart from unlawful withholding
of the amount, as attributed to the present petitioners.
6.1. They further submitted that as per the factual report dated
13.10.2022, the offences under Sections 420 and 406 IPC has
been prima-facie made out against the present petitioners and
charge-sheet has also been chalked out.
7. Heard learned counsel for the parties as well as perused the
record of the case, along with the judgments cited at the Bar.
8. On a perusal of the factual report, this Court does not deem
it appropriate to enter into the narrow parameters of quashing of
FIR. The said factual report is taken on record.
9. This Court observes that once there is no prayer for quashing
of the charge-sheet, neither is there any averment to that regard
been made in the present petition, and therefore then this Court is
not inclined to permit any such amendment in the petition, at this
belated stage.
10. This Court further observes that the judgments cited at the
Bar by the learned counsel for the petitioners do not render any
assistance to the petitioners' case at hand.
11. Consequently, the present petition is dismissed. However,
this Court grants liberty to the petitioners to take all legal recourse
available to them, at the appropriate stage, which shall include
challenge to the charge sheet before the appropriate Court.
Accordingly, all pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.
(DR.PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI), J.
SKant/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
