Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Jaswant Kumar @ Jaswant Choudhary S/O ... vs State Of Rajasthan on 22 November, 2021
Author: Pankaj Bhandari
Bench: Pankaj Bhandari
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 6610/2019
1. Jaswant Kumar @ Jaswant Choudhary S/o Shri Rikhab
Chand Jain (Choudhary), Aged About 50 Years, Resident
Of Munot Nagar, Brahmanand Marg, Mahaveer Bazar,
Beawar District Ajmer.
2. Pankaj Choudhary S/o Jaswant Kumar @ Jaswant
Choudhary, Resident Of Munot Nagar, Brahmanand Marg,
Mahaveer Bazar, Beawar District Ajmer.
----Petitioners
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Public Prosecutor.
2. Surjit Singh S/o Shri Mangal Singh, Aged About 52 Years, Resident Of Gurucharan Bhawan, Gachiyo Ki Gali, Shitla Chok, Rani, District Pali (Rajasthan)
3. Harnish Singh @ Ronak S/o Late Indrajeet Singh, R/o 7/94, Lane No. 1, Kishanganj, Beawar.
4. Harijeet Kaur @ Pamma W/o Late Sh. Indrajeet Singh, R/o 7/94, Lane No. 1, Kishanganj, Beawar.
5. Rama S/o Abdul Ji, Meharat, Resident Of Village Fatehgarh, Satla.
6. Masthan S/o Pachu, Resident Of Beawar.
7. Jaswant Chouhan S/o Unknown, Resident Of Beawar.
8. Satyanarayan Maheshwari S/o Unknown, Resident Of Beawar.
9. Satnam Kaur Gandhi W/o Amarjeet Singh, Resident Of A Shakti Sadan Puneet Maharaj Road, Mani Nagar, Near Gurdwara Ahmedabad, Gujrat.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mohd. Ashfaq Khan with
Ms. Rekha Jain
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sanjay Gangwar
For State : Mr. Sher Singh Mahla, PP
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ BHANDARI
Order
(Downloaded on 24/11/2021 at 09:49:02 PM)
(2 of 6) [CRLMP-6610/2019]
22/11/2021
1. Accused-petitioners have preferred this Criminal Misc.
Petition seeking quashing of FIR No.876/2019, registered at Police Station Beawar City. (Investigation has been transferred to Police Station Beawar, Sadar).
2. It is contended by counsel for the petitioners that complainant-respondent No.2 filed a complaint (Annexure-15) before Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Beawar. The said complaint was sent to police for registering an FIR and an FIR (Annexure-16) was registered. It is contended that the FIR does not discloses commission of a cognizable offence. No offence of cheating and signature of any valuable security is made out. It is contended that as per the complaint, complainant has mentioned that he is not the owner of any property. It is alleged that the accused are forcing him to sign the documents pertaining to the property. It is contended that when complainant is not the owner of any property, there is no question of any gain or wrongful loss to any person.
3. Counsel for the petitioners has drawn my attention to Para No.2 of the FIR, wherein it is specifically mentioned by the complainant that he is not having any property in Beawar. Counsel for the petitioner has also drawn my attention to Section 24 IPC, which defines "dishonestly".
4. Counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on Birla Corporation Limited Vs. Adventz Investments and Holidays Limited and Ors., AIR 2019 SC 2390.
5. Counsel for the petitioners also contends that petitioners had filed a case against M/s Samta Colonizer and to counterblast the same, the present FIR has been filed. It is also contended that in (Downloaded on 24/11/2021 at 09:49:02 PM) (3 of 6) [CRLMP-6610/2019] the complaint lodged by the petitioners, the present complainant is not arrayed as an accused. It is contended that there was some dispute pertaining between the colonizers, petitioners and the complainant. All the original documents were shown and the dispute was resolved. None of the documents referred to by the complainant have been used, so as to caus any wrongful loss to the complainant.
6. Counsel for the complainant has opposed the misc. petition. It is contended that the petitioners have created an agreement to sale (Annexure-1), which is an alleged agreement to sale executed in favour of the complainant but it does not bear the signatures of the complainant. Similarly, Annexure-4 is also a forged document which is executed in favour of the complainant, which also does not bear the signatures of the complainant. It is contended that Annexure-2 and 3 are agreement to sale executed on behalf of the complainant in favour of the petitioners which are forged documents, but signatures there on are not of the present complainant and are forged signatures. It is also contended that in the FIR, complainant has mentioned that he was threatened by the petitioners and respondents No.3 to 9. It is argued that the offence of Section 384 IPC is made out.
7. I have considered the contentions and have perused the complaint.
8. From perusal of the complaint, it is an admitted position that the complainant is not owning any property in Beawar. It is also admitted by counsel for the complainant that he is not owning any property in Beawar. Police has registered case under Sections 415, 416, 417, 419, 420, 406, 464, 467, 468, 471, 384, 503, 120-B of IPC. As far as the present petitioners are concerned, in Para No.2 (Downloaded on 24/11/2021 at 09:49:02 PM) (4 of 6) [CRLMP-6610/2019] of the FIR, it is specifically mentioned that the petitioners wanted the complainant to sign some documents pertaining to the property. It is also mentioned that the complainant is not owning any property in Beawar.
9. Section 415 defines cheating which reproduced as under:-
"Whoever, by deceiving any person, fraudulently or dishonestly induces the person so deceived to deliver any property to any person, or to consent that any person shall retain any property, or intentionally induces the person so deceived to do or omit to do anything which he would not do or omit if he were not so deceived, and which act or omission causes or is likely to cause damage or harm to that person in body, mind, reputation or property, is said to "cheat".
Explanation.--A dishonest concealment of facts is a deception within the meaning of this section.
10. Dishonestly defines in Section 424, which reads as under:
"Whoever dishonestly or fraudulently conceals or removes any property of himself or any other person, or dishonestly or fraudulently assists in the concealment or removal thereof, or dishonestly releases any demand or claim to which he is entitled, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both."
11. For constituting the offence there has to be some dishonest inducement and as per the definition of "dishonestly", there has to be intention of any wrongful gain or wrongful loss to any person. As complainant is not owning any property, there is no question of any wrongful loss to him. Therefore, the ingredients of offence under Sections 415, 416, 417, 419, 420 IPC are not made out. (Downloaded on 24/11/2021 at 09:49:02 PM)
(5 of 6) [CRLMP-6610/2019] From perusal of the FIR, the other offences for which FIR has been registered is Sections 406, 405 defines criminal breach of trust which reproduced here as under:-
"Whoever, being in any manner entrusted with property, or with any dominion over property, dishonestly misappropriates or converts to his own use that property, or dishonestly uses or disposes of that property in violation of any direction of law prescribing the mode in which such trust is to be discharged, or of any legal contract, express or implied, which he has made touching the discharge of such trust, or wilfully suffers any other person so to do, commits "criminal breach of trust".
12. Since, complainant is not owning any property, there is no question of entrustment of property, therefore, offence of breach of trust is also not made out from perusal of the FIR. The documents on the basis of which complainant claims that petitioners have forged the documents are not original documents and therefore, police has not been able to obtain any FSL report from the FSL.
13. The contention of counsel for the complainant that offence under Section 384 IPC is made out cannot be accepted. Section 383 IPC reads as under:-
"Whoever intentionally puts any person in fear of any injury to that person, or to any other, and thereby dishonestly induces the person so put in fear to deliver to any person any property or valuable security, or anything signed or sealed which may be converted into a valuable security, commits "extortion".
14. Since, complainant is not owning any property, there is no question of dishonestly inducing him to deliver any property. The (Downloaded on 24/11/2021 at 09:49:02 PM) (6 of 6) [CRLMP-6610/2019] ingredients of offence under Section 384 IPC are also not made out from bare perusal of the complaint and the FIR. No offence under Section 503 is also made out against the present petitioners from bare perusal of the complaint.
15. The FIR does not discloses commission of a cognizable offence qua the petitioners as the ingredients of the offences are not made out. Continuation of proceedings would tantamount to abuse of the process of the Court. Since, the ingredients of the offences are not made out from bare perusal of the complaint and the FIR. The Apex Court in Birla Corporation Limited Vs. Adventz Investments and Holidays Limited and Ors. (supra), has held that if the complaint does not allege that there was any wrongful gain to the respondents or wrongful loss, the proceedings cannot be continued. Since, Complaint/FIR does not disclose any wrongful loss or wrongful gain, this Court deems it proper to quash the FIR qua the petitioners.
16. Criminal Misc. Petition is accordingly, allowed. FIR No.876/2019, registered at Police Station Beawar City (Investigation has been transferred to Police Station Beawar, Sadar) qua the present petitioners are quashed and set aside.
17. Stay application stands disposed.
(PANKAJ BHANDARI),J CHANDAN /18 (Downloaded on 24/11/2021 at 09:49:02 PM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)