Sunny Madhogadiya vs State Of Rajasthan
2023 Latest Caselaw 6200 Raj

(1 of 4) [CRLMP-7960/2022]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 7960/2022 Sunny Madhogadiya S/o Sh. Ramesh Kumar, Aged About 40 Years, E39, Shastri Nagar, Jaipur, Raj.

----Petitioner Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp

2. Devidas S/o Sh. Vishandas, 90, Near Bombay Motor Circle, Residency Road, Sardarpura, Jodhpur City West, Raj.

----Respondents

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Deepak Bishnoi For Respondent(s) : Mr. Laxman Solanki, PP Mr. Vinay Jain Mr. Dharshan Jain Mr. Umesh Kall

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MADAN GOPAL VYAS Judgment

DATE OF JUDGMENT 22/08/2023

The present criminal misc. petition under Section 482 of

Cr.P.C. has been preferred by the petitioner for quashing of the

FIR No.249/2022 lodged at Police Station Sardarpura, District

Jodhpur City West for the offences under Sections 420, 406 and

120B of the IPC and under Section 5 of the Chit Fund Act, 1982.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the

complainant lodged the impugned FIR after delay of one year and

one month alleging the aforesaid offences. It is submitted that

the respondent-complainant has lodged the impugned FIR only in

order to harass the petitioner. Learned counsel submits that if the

contents of the FIR are seen, then it is clear that the dispute is of

(2 of 4) [CRLMP-7960/2022]

civil nature and no criminal case is made out. It is submitted that

in the first scheme, the respondent-complainant had taken the

benefit of Rs.20 lacs and when the second and third scheme were

not allotted to him, then the present FIR came to be lodged. The

petitioner submits that the investigating agency is unnecessarily

harassing the petitioner, therefore, the impugned FIR deserves to

be quashed and set aside. In support of his arguments, learned

counsel relied upon the following judgments:

(i) Arun Bhandari Vs. State of UP & Ors (Cr. Appeal No.78/2013), decided on 10.1.2013 - Supreme Court of India.

(ii) Dalip Kaur & Ors. Vs. Jagnar Singh & Anr. (Cr. Appeal No.1135/2009), decided on 7.7.2009 - Supreme Court of India.

(iii) SW Palanitkar & Ors. Vs. State of Bihar & Anr (Cr. Appeal No.1072/2001), decided on 18.10.2001 - Supreme Court of India.

(iv) Hira Lal Hari Lal Bhagwati Vs. CBI, New Delhi (Cr. Appeal No.676/2003), decided on 2.5.2003 - Supreme Court of India.

(v) Kesarimal Vs. State of Raj. & Ors. ( SB Cr. Misc. Petition No.8036/2022), decided on 25.11.2022, Rajasthan High Court-Jodhpur Bench.

3. Learned counsel appearing for the complainant opposed the

prayer made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. Learned

counsel for the complainant submits that the offences alleged

against the petitioner are true and correct as from the very

beginning, the petitioner was not inclined to refund the amount.

It is further submitted that there is evidence available on record

including copies of WhatsApp chats between the petitioner and the

complainant which indicate that the petitioner has ill intention and

is not inclined to refund a total sum of Rs.36 lacs to the

(3 of 4) [CRLMP-7960/2022]

respondent-complainant. Therefore, it is prayed that the present

criminal misc. petition deserves to be rejected.

4. Learned Public Prosecutor while relying upon the factual

report dated 11.8.2023 submitted that in the present matter, the

investigating agency has prima facie found that offences under

Sections 420, 406 and 120B of the IPC are made out against the

petitioner.

5. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the

material available on record as well as the case diary produced by

the learned Public Prosecutor.

6. The powers of this Court under Section 482, CrPC are very

wide. However, the Hon'ble Apex Court has time and again

reiterated that such powers are to be used sparingly and only in

exceptional circumstances for securing the ends of justice and in

cases where refusal to exercise such power may result into abuse

of the process of law.

7. In the present matter, there are no exceptional circumstances

that warrant the interference of this Court under Section 482,

CrPC. Thus, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the

case, after perusing the case diary as well as the factual report

produced by the learned Public Prosecutor and looking to the

allegations levelled against the petitioner, this Court does not find

it to be a fit case for quashing of the FIR impugned.

8. In view of the above, the present criminal misc. petition is

dismissed.

(4 of 4) [CRLMP-7960/2022]

9. The stay application also stands disposed of accordingly.

(MADAN GOPAL VYAS),J 420-CPGoyal/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)