Maya and Others vs State of Haryana and Another

Mahesh Grover, J.—There could not have been a better case where abuse of process of law is a writ large on the face of it. The petitioners had supplied a machine to the private respondent after following the process involved in such like commercial transaction i.e. issuance of a quotation and invoice which was accepted by the respondent-complainant and after payment had been made, the machine was supplied. This, however, was not to the satisfaction of the complainant as according to him, there were certain flaws in the machine and, therefore, he had to summon a mechanic from the petitioners'' company and in the process, respondent No. 2 had to suffer an additional expenditure of Rs. 27,000/-. Primarily dissatisfied with the functioning of the machine, he resorted to filing of the FIR with the allegation that he has been overcharged and made to pay Rs. 17,00,000/- approximately as against the invoice and quotation of Rs. 11,90,000/-. He further alleged that the machine was old, requiring repairs for which he had to pay Rs. 27,000/- more and when he wanted to return the machine or asked for refund of the excess payment, he was humiliated and beaten at Delhi. Broadly with these allegations, the FIR was registered. The matter was investigated and challan submitted.

It may not be out of place to mention here that respondent No. 2 filed a complaint before the District Consumer Forum which was dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to pursue his remedy with the civil court.

If the facts of the case are seen in their entirety, then, it does not even remotely suggest commission of any offence. It only details a commercial transaction which, for some reason, did not result in a satisfactory arrangement for respondent No. 2. It, by no stretch of imagination, would invite the commission of offence u/s 420 IPC.

Section 420 IPC is extracted here:-

Cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property

Whoever cheats and thereby dishonestly induces the person deceived any property to any person, or to make, alter or destroy the whole or any part of a valuable security, or anything which is signed or sealed, and which is capable of being converted into a valuable security, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.

There is no allegation that there was any misrepresentation made to respondent No. 2 to extract money from him arid, therefore, essential ingredients of Section 420 IPC do not stand established. It is a well settled proposition of law that if a bare reading of the FIR does not disclose the commission of any offence, then, in such like matters, the FIR deserves to be quashed. In support of this, reference can be made to the findings of the Hon''ble Supreme Court in State of Haryana and others Vs. Ch. Bhajan Lal and others, .

Apart from this, the reading of the FIR would also disclose a sheer abuse of the process of law by respondent No. 2 who has used the agency of the police to settle his score of a purely commercial transaction gone sour.

This Court is of the opinion that such a blatant abuse of the process of law should not be permitted and rather some sort of deterrence needs to be provided in order to obviate the chances of such repetitive attempt. Clearly, the investigating officer has been more benign to the (sic) of the complainant and when the facts did not even remotely suggest the commission of offence, the investigation has been distorted and tailor-made to suit the demands of the complainant. It is intriguing that the police officials often demonstrate lethargy in more serious offences such as rape and murder which do not even make the slightest impact on the sensitivities of the police and in this case where purely a commercial transaction was at stake, alacrity has been shown to book the petitioners and the entire family, and a report submitted u/s 173 Cr.P.C.

Learned counsel for the respondent would vehemently state that there are allegations of beating and criminal intimidation and this itself would be sufficient to sustain the contents of the FIR and the subsequent proceedings even if the earlier content of the commercial transaction is ignored. To the mind of this Court, even this would be unsustainable that allegations of beating etc. are said to have been committed in Delhi and not within the jurisdiction and confines of the police authorities who have chosen to register the FIR and taken notice thereof. This is a bare minimum that the investigating officer would have done by segregating atleast the two components of the imaginary grievance of the respondent-complainant.

The aforesaid unwarranted adventurism of respondent No. 2 and the investigating officer has not only resulted in harassment of the petitioners but has also resulted in wastage of time of this Court and, therefore, while accepting the petition, quashing the impugned FIR and the entire proceedings subsequent thereto, I deem it to be a fit case to impose costs upon both the respondents i.e. State of Haryana and respondent No. 2. The costs are determined at Rs. 1,00,000/- as far as respondent No. 2 is concerned and Rs. 50,000/- as far as respondent No. 1 is concerned. The costs imposed upon respondent No. 1 shall be recovered from the personal pay/salary of the investigating officer whose name has been given out to be Sub Inspector - Jai Kishan and shall be paid to the petitioners. The petition is allowed in the above terms.