AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
J.M. Tondon, J.
The police registered first information report No 78 Police Station, Division No. 2, Jullundur on April 1, 1982, under section 420/120 D, India Penal Code on receiving a written complaint by V. D.Chaudhri complainant addressed to Senior Superintendent of Police, Jullunder.
The Complaint of V. D. Chaudhri reads :
To the S.S.P. District Jullundur,
Dear Sir,
It is submitted that one Mr. Bhim Sain Kohli son of Shri Hardyal Kohli of village Noor Mahal came to my contact some time in 196970 when he arrived from U.K. along with his ailing wife. In response to my sympathy he invited me to visit his residence in Warwial (U.K.). I happened to go on World Tour missionary job and on my way back during February, 1979, I visited him to honour my commitment. It was rather shocking to learn that Mr. Kohli was in prison for two years for car lifting and for printing forged foreign currency (as per Mr. Kohli''s version) whom I met in prison. On the contract Mr. Kohli pleaded himself innocent and expressed that he was being implicated because he is a British later. This gave me feeling that Mr. Kohli a foreigner in U.K. was being harassed for no fault of his. While explaining his misery he burst into tears and immediate exploited my sentiments and virtually begged from me to arrange a suitable match for his daughter Sudha (since he was in prison and far away from the country). So I gave assurance that suitable match shall be arranged if they visit Chandigarh. Sudha Informed me that Mr. Kohli was released from the prison and was likely to visit India. So ultimately, Mr. Kohli after his release came to India in May, 1981, and his family followed him. On 11th September, 1981. Sudha''s marriage was arranged at my residence 146, Sector 8A, Chandigarh. When invitation cards and marriage preparations were made Mr. Kohli abruptly expressed that the entire amount was deposited in the name of his wife and he had no money with him. Mr. Kohli said that his wife is insane and as such she was reluctant to withdraw any amount from the Bank. Hence, he requested me for monetary assistance and jewellery I thus arranged one diamond set and one gold set valuing at Rs. 23500/ beside cash amount of Rs. 45000/. The cash and the aforesaid set were handed over to Mr. Bhim Sain Kohli at H. No. 152 Lajpat Nagar Jullundur, a week before the marriage in the presence of Shri Ashok Sharma and Satish Verma. Mr. Kohli assured me that the entire amount of Rs. 6800/ plus Rs. 2000/ regarding overseas trunk calls made by him from my telephone No. 28060 which he had made to his son and daughter abroad would be paid in two weeks time. Besides, Mr. Kohli informed me that he was expecting about Rs. 40,000/ from Ludhiana Civil Courts lying there on account of arrears of the rent of his building anytime. In addition to that he informed me that he was expecting the return of Rs. 85,000/ which he had advanced to Mr. Vinod son of Shri T.D. Jaiwani of Industrial Area, Ludhiana. Sir already six months time has lapsed and Mr. Kohli has not cared to return, single penny except that he had given the enclosed cheque No. 73636 dated February 15, 1982, for Rs. 33500/ in my favour which, too got bounced on March 22, 1982, with memo. Thereafter I met Sudha his daughter who gave me a letter in the name of her father asking him to return at least Rs. 12000/ the cost of diamond set which was just taken on credit basis at the time of her marriage from M/s. Bhatia Jewellers Amritsar. Mr. Kohli when contacted last was found nonserious regarding the payment of Rs. 70500/ and refused point blank to return the amount in the presence of Shri Chonar retired D.SP. (CBI). I apprehended from his behaviour and previous criminal background that he had formed at gang among the members of his family i.e. his wife Mrs. Krishna Kohli (now back to U.K.) to defraud the innocent people by these tactics. Under the circumstances it is requested that suitable action way kindly be initiated against Mr. Bhim Sain Kohli and his family who have wilfully defrauded me of Rs. 70500/.
with regards,
Yours faithfully,
Sd/
(V.D. Choudhri)
115, Adarsh Nagar, Jullundur.
Bhim Sain Kohli petitioner against whom the complaint is directed has filed the present petition under section 482, Criminal Procedure Code, praying that the first information report No. 78 as also all subsequent proceedings thereunder be quashed.
The learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the complaint of VD Chaudhary reproduced above does not disclose the commission of an offence under section 420, Indian Penal Code, either by the petitioner or anybody else. The argument proceeds that apart From the fact that the, complaint is a tissue of lies, it does not disclose the essential requirements of Section 420 Indian Penal Code (i) dishonest intention, (ii) false representation or concealment of fact, and, (ii) inducement to valuable property. The Complaint has been filed to cause harassment to the petitioner who is otherwise a British subject. The first information report registered on the basis of the complaint and the proceedings initiated thereunder are liable to be quashed.
The learned counsel for the State as also for the complainant have argued that the complaint of V.D. Chaudhari does disclose the commission of an offence under Section 420, Indian Penal Code, against the petitioner and as such the first information report registered an its basis is not liable to be quashed.
The crucial part of the complaint made by V.D. Choudhri is :
"When invitation cards and marriage preparations were made Mr. Kohli abruptly expressed that the entire amount was deposited in the name of his wife and he had no money with him : Mr. Kohli said that his wife is insane and as such she was reluctant to with draw any amount from the Bank. Hence requested me for monetary assistance and jewellery.
Sir, already six months time has lapsed and Mr. Kohli has not cared to return a single penny except that he had given the enclosed Cheque No. 73636 dated February 15, 1982, for Rs. 334,500/ in my favour which too got bounced on March 22, 1982, with memo
The petitioner is alleged to have made the following three objectionable representations :
(1) The entire amount was deposited in the name of his wife and he had no money with him.
(2) His wife was insane.
(3) Six months after the money had been spent by the complainant on the basis of the two representations made by the petitioner, the latter issued a cheque for Rs. 33500/ which was not honoured when presented.
So far as the issuing of a cheque for Rs. 33500/ in favour of the complainant by the petitioner on February 15, 1982 is concerned it cannot be used Against the latter for involving him in offence under section 420, Indian Penal Code, inasmuch as it was not issued to induce the complainant in deliver any property or to do or omit to do anything.
According to the complainant, the petitioner came to India in May, 1981, and his family) including wife) followed him thereafter. The marriage of Sudha, daughter of the petitioner, was fixed on September 11, 1981, at the residence of the petitioner at 146, Sector 8A, Chandigarh. The complainant knew the petitioner and his wife since 196970. The case of the complainant is that the Marriage had been got arranged by him. The complainant thus had full opportunity to know the State of mental health of the petitioner''s wife at the time the petitioner made the alleged representation under these circumstances there could be no occasion for the petitioner to make a deceptive representation to the complainant about the mental condition of his wife. The petitioner cannot be taken to have committed the offence of cheating even prima facie on the basis of such representation.
The petitioner had allegedly represented that he had no money with him and the entire money had been deposited in the name of his wife who was reluctant to withdraw it. The complainant was in no way bound to spend money for the marriage of petitioner''s daughter. This apart, the complainant has not stated in the complainant that the alleged representations made to him by the petitioner were false or but for the false representations made to him would not have spent money on the marriage of Sudha. The petitioner cannot be taken to have committed the offence of cheating as a result of this representation as well.
All the three representations allegedly made by the petitioner either individually or collectively do not disclose the commission of an offence of cheating on the part of the petitioner or anybody else. The dispute between the parties at best appears to be of a civil nature. The complainant has lodged the complaint with the police for the sole purpose of causing harassment and to use it as a coercive measure against the petitioner. The first information report No. 78 registered on the basis of the complaint is, therefore, liable to be quashed.
In the result, the petition is accepted and the first information report No. 78 dated April 1, 1982. registered with Police Station Division No. 2 at Jallandur and all subsequent proceedings thereunder are quashed.