Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Ramchandra Choudhary vs State Of Rajasthan on 11 January, 2023
Author: Pushpendra Singh Bhati
Bench: Pushpendra Singh Bhati
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 6320/2021
1. Ramchandra Choudhary S/o Purkharam, Aged About 44
Years, R/o Dheru Khinvsar Tehsil Khinvsar, Distt. Nagaur
(Raj.)
2. Mala Ram S/o Kumbharam, Aged About 40 Years, R/o
Jusri Makrana Tehsil Makrana, District Nagaur (Raj.)
3. Vijay Choudhary S/o Hanuman Ram, Aged About 45
Years, R/o Asanpura Kuchaman City District Nagaur (Raj.)
4. Ramniwas S/o Hanuman Ram, Aged About 40 Years, R/o
Asanpura Kuchaman City, District Nagaur (Raj.)
5. Raju Ram S/o Devkaran, Aged About 38 Years, R/o
Paladiraja Altwa Makrana Tehsil Makrana District Nagaur
(Raj.)
----Petitioners
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
2. Madan S/o Bhanwar Lal, R/o Manager Saras Dairy,
Nagaur Kotwali, Distt. Nagaur.
----Respondents
For Petitioners : Mr. Kushal Gautam
For Respondents : Mr. Mahipal Bishnoi, P.P.
Mr. Bhanu Prakash Mathur
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI
Order 11/01/2023
1. This criminal misc. petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been preferred claiming the following reliefs:
"It is, therefore, most humbly and respectfully prayed that this Criminal Misc. Petition may kindly be allowed and the F.I.R. No. 493/2021 registered at Police Station Kotwali, Dist. Nagaur and further proceedings in (Downloaded on 12/01/2023 at 10:06:14 PM) (2 of 5) [CRLMP-6320/2021] pursuant thereof, may kindly be quashed and set-aside qua the petitioners".
2. As the pleaded facts and the record would reveal, the respondent No.2 herein, who was working as Managing Director of the Milk Union (Saras Dairy), Nagaur, had lodged the impugned FIR, levelling allegations against the present petitioners, and other persons, who were engaged as contractors to collect the cash, out of milk selling and transport thereof in the concerned area i.e. Nagaur District; the allegations in question are pertaining to misappropriation of the amount so collected by them; the said amount, as per the respondent no.2, was required to be deposited with the office of the Union, but the same was withheld by the petitioners and others, thereby committing the offences under Sections 405 & 409 IPC.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners, at the outset, submits that the present petitioners themselves have filed a complaint against the present complainant/respondent No.2 and other persons before the concerned Magistrate, regarding misuse of the funds of the Union; where after, upon coming to know about the said complaint, the impugned FIR was lodged against the present petitioners, which is nothing but an attempt to counter the said complaint without any substantial basis, and thus, the impugned FIR is a clear abuse of the process of law.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that no act of the present petitioners comes under the definition of the criminal breach of trust, as alleged in the impugned FIR, and that nothing has been mentioned, which could constitute the alleged offences against the present petitioners; more so when the (Downloaded on 12/01/2023 at 10:06:14 PM) (3 of 5) [CRLMP-6320/2021] element of requisite entrustment is apparently missing in the present case.
5. In support of his submissions, learned counsel for the petitioners relied upon the judgments rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of M N G Bharateesh Reddy Vs. Ramesh Ranganathan and Anr. (Criminal Appeal No. 1273 of 2022) decided on 18.08.2022 and Md. Ibrahim & Ors. Vs. State of Bihar & Anr. (Criminal Appeal 1695 of 2009) decided on 04.09.2009 5.1. He further relied upon the judgments rendered by this Hon'ble Court in the case of Bhoma Ram & Anr. Vs State of Rajasthan & Anr. (S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No. 1402 of 2015) decided on 27.07.2017. and Narendra Kumar Goswami Vs. State of Rajasthan (S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No. 1519 of 2014) decided on 13.07.2017.
6. Learned Public Prosecutor as well as learned counsel for the complainant/respondent No.2 oppose the aforesaid submissions made on behalf of the petitioners.
7. Learned counsel for the complainant/respondent No.2 submits that the present case pertains to misappropriation and withholding of a huge sum of money running in crores of rupees; which was required to be deposited with the office of the Dairy Union by the present petitioners.
8. Learned counsel for the complainant/respondent No.2 further submits that petitioners-Ramniwas and Vijay Choudhary also issued two cheques in favour of respondent No.2, but the same were dishonoured, on count of which, a complaint under Section (Downloaded on 12/01/2023 at 10:06:14 PM) (4 of 5) [CRLMP-6320/2021] 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1887 was also filed by the present complainant against them.
9. Learned counsel for the respondent no.2/complainant, in support of his submissions relied upon the judgments rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the cases of M/s Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of Maharashtra (Criminal Appeal No. 330 of 2021) decided on 13.04.2021, Kaptan Singh Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh (Criminal Appeal 787 of 2021) decided on 13.08.2021, Lalita Kumari Vs. Government Of U.P. (Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 68 of 2008) decided on 12.11.2013, Aziza Begum Vs. State of Maharashtra & Anr. (Criminal Appeal No. 126 of 2012) decided 12.01.2012, Manoj Kumaria Shankaria Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr. 2014(3) Raj.CriC 965, and Salimbhai Hamidbhai Memon vs Niteshkumar Maganbhai Patel (Criminal Appeal 884 of 2021) decided on 31.08.2021.
10. Heard learned counsel for the parties as well as perused the record of the case, alongwith the judgments cited at the Bar.
11. Looking into the peculiar factual matrix of the case, wherein misappropriation and unauthorized withholding of a huge sum of money of the Dairy Union has been alleged, this Court is of the firm opinion that the present FIR requires due and thorough investigation, and further, the pre-mature stage of the case, owing to the issues involved herein, also does not call for invocation of the inherent powers of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
12. This Court also observes that the parameters for quashment of the FIR have been succinctly laid down by the Hon'ble Apex (Downloaded on 12/01/2023 at 10:06:14 PM) (5 of 5) [CRLMP-6320/2021] Court in the case of State of Haryana & Ors. Vs. Ch. Bhajan Lal & Ors., 1992 SCC Supp (1) 335.
13. On a consideration of the factual backdrop of the case at hand, this Court does not find it to be falling within the parameters for quashment of the FIR, as laid down in the precedent law of State of Haryana & Ors. Vs. Ch. Bhajan Lal & Ors. (supra).
14. The precedent laws cited on behalf of the petitioners do not render any assistance to their case.
15. Consequently, the present petition fails and the same is hereby dismissed. All pending applications stand disposed of.
(DR.PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI), J.
95-SKant/-
(Downloaded on 12/01/2023 at 10:06:14 PM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)