Madhya Pradesh High Court
Vijay Shrivastava vs M/S Dalite Colonisers & Construction ... on 3 December, 2015
MCRC-3878-2009 (VIJAY SHRIVASTAVA Vs M/S DALITE COLONISERS & CONSTRUCTION CO.CHINAR HOUSE) 03-12-2015 Ms. J.L. Aiyer, counsel for the applicant. Shri Parmanand Sahu, counsel for respondent Nos. 1, 2 & 3. None for respondent No. 4, though served. Heard on admission. The applicant has preferred the present petition under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. against the order dated 25.1.2008 passed by JMFC, Bhopal in an unregistered Criminal Case âVijay Shrivastava Vs. M/s Delite Colonisers & Construction Co.â whereby the complaint filed by the applicant was dismissed under Section 203 of the Cr.P.C. The applicant has also challenged the order dated 12.2.2009 passed by Thirteenth Additional Sessions Judge, Bhopal in Criminal Revision No. 276/2008 whereby the revision filed by the applicant was dismissed. Facts of the case, in short, are that the applicant preferred a
criminal complaint against the respondents for offences under Sections 193, 197, 406, 409, 418, 420 read with Section 34 of the IPC on the ground that initially a contract took place between the applicant and respondent Nos. 1, 2 & 3 that two plots will be supplied to the applicant, however, thereafter only one plot was supplied, sale deed was executed and respondent Nos. 1, 2 & 3 issued a cheque of Rs. 10,000/- to return the amount of second plot. However, cheque was given to respondent No. 4, who deposited the cheque in his own account and, therefore, it was alleged that the respondents have cheated the applicant and misappropriated his amount.
After considering the evidence adduced under Section 200 and 202 of the Cr.P.C., the trial Court has dismissed the complaint under Section 203 of the Cr.P.C. and revision was also dismissed.
After considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, it appears that the trial Court has found that the applicant was agreed to get the amount of second plot to be returned and, therefore, a cheque of Rs.10,000/- was issued. The trial Court has also found that when the cheque was given to respondent No. 4 and he misappropriated the amount then respondent Nos. 1, 2 & 3 had lodged the FIR in the year 2003 and, therefore, a prosecution was initiated against respondent No. 4. Under these circumstances, when no agreement took place between applicant and respondent No. 4 and prosecution for misappropriation and breach of trust was initiated by respondent Nos. 1, 2 & 3 then no second prosecution could be initiated against respondent No. 4. The trial Court has rightly dismissed the complaint of the applicant against respondent No. 4.
So far as offence against respondent Nos. 1, 2 & 3 is concerned, it was a civil matter that initially the agreement took place of purchase of two plots and thereafter one plot was sold and advance paid for the second plot was returned. Since respondent Nos. 1, 2 & 3 have issued a cheque, it cannot be said that they have committed any breach of trust or said amount was deposited with them.
Looking to the civil nature of the transaction, when no element of cheating is visible, under such circumstances neither offence under Sections 418, 420 of the IPC nor offence under Section 406 of the IPC was constituted against respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3.
So far as offences under Sections 193, 197 of the IPC are concerned, no documents was shown by the applicant before the trial Court that such offence could constitute. No illegality or perversity is visible in the impugned orders passed by the Courts below. Under these circumstances, in absence of any illegality or perversity, no interference can be done in the orders passed by the Courts below. It is not a good case in which inherent powers of this Court under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. may be invoked in favour of the applicant.
Consequently, the petition under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. filed by applicant Vijay Shrivastava is hereby dismissed at motion stage.
(N.K. GUPTA) JUDGE