Madhya Pradesh High Court
Vipin Garg @ Banti vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh Thr on 28 March, 2019
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
1 M.Cr.C. No.17919/2018
(Vipin Garg @ Banti Vs. State of M.P. and Another)
Gwalior Bench:
Dated: 28/03/2019
Shri Sanjay Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Shri Sushant Tiwari, learned Public Prosecutor for respondent
No.1-State.
Shri Ankit Saxena, learned counsel for respondent No.2. With consent, heard finally.
The present petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. has been preferred by the petitioner against the order dated 25/04/2017 passed by Additional District Judge No.3 (Electricity), Gwalior whereby revision preferred by the petitioner/ revisionist vide Cr.R. No.66/2017 has been dismissed. Through the revisional order it has been found that the trial Court/ Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gwalior rightly took cognizance in the matter against the petitioner.
Precisely stated facts of the case are that respondent No.2 filed a private complaint on dated 20th June, 2016 against the present petitioner with the allegations of commission of offence under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120 B of IPC. Respondent No.2 and co-accused Nitin Singhal settled the matter. Statement under Sections 200 and 202 of Cr.P.C. of complainant and his witnesses were taken. As per the statement, respondent No.2/ complainant was in good relationship with present petitioner i.e. Vipin Garg and the son of respondent No.2 namely Dipesh Chugh used to run a mobile shop. Compelled by the circumstances, he took some loan for his trade from HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH 2 M.Cr.C. No.17919/2018 (Vipin Garg @ Banti Vs. State of M.P. and Another) some persons out of which some loan amount has been paid and some was yet to be paid. On dated 05/04/2013, Vipin Garg and his friends intimidated the complainant and his wife and took some signatures over blank cheques. On the fateful night of 20 th August, 2013, complainant's son committed suicide because of instigation and harassment caused by the petitioner and his friends. Case was registered vide Crime No.445/2013 under Sections 306/34 of IPC. Complainant was also afraid of the intimidation given by the petitioner when he took blank cheques alongwith them therefore, a report was lodged on 16/09/2013 to police authorities including Superintendent of Police/ City Superintendent of Police. Meanwhile, complainant informed the bank to stop payment. When police authorities did not react affirmatively then complainant also made a complaint to senior officers of the police department.
As per the complainant, on 28/02/2014, he received information about dishonour of cheque No.438583 carrying amount of Rs.1,75,000/-, he replied back the notice through his counsel and later on, came to know that in September, 2015, a case has been registered against him under Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred as the "NI Act"). Thereafter, complainant filed a complaint against the petitioner and Nitin Singhal under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120 B of IPC on which cognizance has been taken by the trial Court and when said HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH 3 M.Cr.C. No.17919/2018 (Vipin Garg @ Banti Vs. State of M.P. and Another) cognizance has been challenged by the petitioner in revisional jurisdiction before the Sessions Court then revision petition was dismissed therefore, the instant petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. has been preferred.
It is the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that petitioner has settled the matter with co-accused Nitin Singhal inter se vide M.Cr.C. No.8162/2017 vide order dated 27/02/2019 and M.Cr.C. No.10128/2019 vide order dated 08/03/2019. Allegations of criminal conspiracy do not exist because when the matter has been settled with other accused (total two accused have been arrayed in the complaint) then no offence in respect of criminal conspiracy is made out. Cheques were alleged to have been filled up by the accused and Section 20 r/w Section 87 of the NI Act supports the case of the petitioner. It cannot be inferred that petitioner persuaded or compelled respondent No.2 to sign the blank cheques. Cause of action for precipitation of dispute was dishonour of cheque but once the case under the NI Act against Nitin Singhal has been settled then no case is made out against the present petitioner. It is a case of counter blast used by respondent No.2 to exert pressure. Respondent No.2 has settled the matter with one more creditor Anil Saxena which is reflected through the letter dated 10/09/2018 written by SHO, Police Station Padav, District Gwalior informing him about the settlement therefore, false case has been registered against the HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH 4 M.Cr.C. No.17919/2018 (Vipin Garg @ Banti Vs. State of M.P. and Another) applicant. One co-accused Anoop Pandey was also arrayed in the complaint over which offence has been registered vide Crime No.22/2017 at Police Station Padav under Sections 411, 467, 468, 471 and 120 B of IPC. It is because of the fact that he also filed a case under Section 138 of NI Act against respondent No.2 therefore, he is also implicated on false pretext.
It is further submitted that no reference of previous events exists in statement under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. to bring home the fact that offences are cognizable and it appears that the civil dispute specially dispute regarding recovery of amount has tried to be converted into criminal liability. He relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Inder Mohan Goswami and Anr. Vs. State of Uttarnachal and Ors., AIR 2008 SC 251 and M/s Indian Oil Corporation Vs. M/s NEPC India Ltd. & Ors., (2006) 6 SCC 736 to assert that civil dispute cannot be converted into criminal case. While relying upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of Haryana and Other Vs. Ch. Bhajanlal, AIR 1992 SC 604 it is submitted that the case prima facie shows that no ingredients exists to take cognizance in the matter. He relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Rajiv Thapar and Others Vs. Madan Lal Kapoor, 2013 (3) SCC 330.
On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor for the respondent-State opposed the prayer and submits that the trial Court HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH 5 M.Cr.C. No.17919/2018 (Vipin Garg @ Banti Vs. State of M.P. and Another) has rightly taken cognizance in the matter and it is for the petitioner to appear before the trial Court and plead and prove his innocence, if any. He prayed for dismissal of the petition.
Learned counsel for respondent No.2/ complainant vehemently opposed the prayer and it is submitted that settlement with one accused Nitin Singhal cannot be a ground for petitioner to seek quashment. It is submitted that ingredients of complaint in respect of Sections 420 and 467 etc., are apparent on record and therefore, on the pretext of settlement with one co-accused, petitioner cannot seek quashment of this case. After framing of charge, evidence has to be led by the parties and cross-examination can bring the facts before the Court. While relying upon Section 114(g) and 157 of the Indian Evidence Act, it is submitted that certain inferences are drawn and previous statements of the witnesses cannot be seen. In paragraphs 4 and 5 of the complaint, specific statement has been made about the allegations of offence against the petitioner therefore, petition be dismissed with cost. He prayed for dismissal of the petition.
Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
This is a case where complainant through private complaint sought trial of petitioner. From the documents placed on record, it appears that on dated 11/07/2018, charges have been framed by the 13th Additional Sessions Judge, Gwalior in respect of Sections 384, HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH 6 M.Cr.C. No.17919/2018 (Vipin Garg @ Banti Vs. State of M.P. and Another) 467/ 120B, 468/120B and 471/120B of IPC. Although ingredients of criminal conspiracy has also been included and language of charge indicates that petitioner was instrumental alongwith co-accused in commission of offence referred in framing of charge against the petitioner. At this juncture what would be the impact of settlement with co-accused Nitin Singhal cannot be seen because petitioner is also facing charge under Section 384 of IPC and it is not necessary that the said offence (Extortion) may depend upon others' conduct. It can be imposed solitarily. Besides that, the allegation as levelled by the complainant and as recorded in its statement before the police, it appears that the allegations are such which needs trial. Although it is true that when one co-accused and complainant have reached to a settlement but it does not mean the automatic proving of innocence of the petitioner. Here petitioner is saddled with the allegation not only under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120 B of IPC but also in respect of conduct of the petitioner wherein he tried to coarse respondent No.2 and his son to compromise their dignity while sending wife of the deceased to the petitioner for pleasure and gratification. Although all these submissions are in the realm of the allegations and would have to be tried and tested on the envil of cross-examination but they are sufficiently implicative for trial. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sheetala Prasad and Ors. Vs. Shri Kant and Anr. reported in AIR 2010 (SC) 1140 has discussed HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH 7 M.Cr.C. No.17919/2018 (Vipin Garg @ Banti Vs. State of M.P. and Another) the scope of revision.
Considering the over all fact situation, it is apparent that case for interference at this stage is not warranted because it is not a case prima facie which indicates that civil transaction has tried to be converted into criminal case.
Revisional Court has dealt with in detail about the submission advanced and thereafter came to the conclusion about the continuous prosecution. Even otherwise, the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Taramani Parakh Vs. State of M.P. and Others, 2015 Cr.L.J (SC) 2031 has held that quashing of a charge is an exception to the rule of continuous prosecution, where the offence is even broadly satisfied, the Court would be more inclined to permit continuation of prosecution rather than its quashing at that initial stage. The Court is not expected to marshal the reliability of the documents at this stage. It is an opinion formed prima facie. Therefore, no case for interference at this stage is made out.
Petition sans merits and the same is hereby dismissed.
(Anand Pathak)
vc Judge
VARSHA CHATURVEDI
2019.04.29 10:45:56 -07'00'