AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
The allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner, in criminal conspiracy with the co-accused persons, deceived the complainant to give his vehicle on rent for the purpose of election campaign of the co-accused persons and made the complainant believe that if the complainant gives the said vehicle, the petitioner will pay the entire amount towards the rent of the vehicle-in-question and induced the complainant, who was so deceived by the petitioner, to give 5-6 of his vehicles on rent for the period of 30.10.2009 to 15.11.2009 of Scorpio, Indigo, Indica make but cheated the complainant by not paying the total amount of Rs.97,000/-.
On the basis of the complaint, the statement of the complainant on solemn affirmation and the statement of the inquiry witnesses, the learned Judicial Magistrate-1st Class-VIII, Ranchi has found prima facie case for the said offences as already indicated above.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the allegation against the petitioner is false. The co-accused was to pay the money. It is next submitted that the petitioner, at the relevant time, was the Deputy Director, Sports/Games & Physical Education Tribal Areas, Government of Jharkhand and she used to hire the complainant’s vehicle for official/sports work. It is then submitted that the accused no.1 was known to the petitioner and the petitioner helped the co-accused for obtaining the vehicle for election purpose. The co-accused was introduced by the petitioner to the complainant. It is also submitted that the complaint has been filed against the petitioner to pressurize the petitioner to part with the money to be paid to the complainant. It is further submitted that the co-accused persons have paid Rs.97,000/- to the complainant.
In support of his contention, the learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Delhi Race Club (1940) Ltd. & Others vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Another reported in (2024) 10 SCC 690 and submits that therein, it has been held that if the case of the complainant that a particular amount is due and payable to him then, he should have filed a civil suit for recovery of the amount against the petitioners but he could not have gone to the court of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate by filing a complaint of cheating and criminal breach of trust and since the civil suit was filed for recovery of the amount, it seems to have prima facie lost the period of limitation for filing such a civil suit and under such circumstances, the continuation of the criminal proceeding would be nothing but abuse of the process of law. It is next submitted that it was observed that the courts shall not be able to understand the fine distinction between criminal breach of trust and cheating. Hence, it is submitted that the prayer as prayed for in this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition be allowed.
Learned Addl.P.P. appearing for the State and the learned counsel for the opposite party No.2 on the other hand vehemently oppose the prayer of the petitioner made in this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition and submit that the allegations against the petitioner are direct and specific. It is next submitted that since the beginning, the petitioner played deception and led the complainant to believe that she will pay the rent of the vehicles as given by the complainant to the co-accused persons and she did so in criminal conspiracy with the co-accused persons and after thus, deceiving the complainant, the petitioner induced him to give his 5-6 vehicles to the co-accused persons and ultimately, did not pay the rent of the vehicles. It is then submitted that the contention of the petitioner that the co-accused persons have paid the money due and payable to the complainant, is at best a defence of the petitioner; which the petitioner can take during the trial of the case but the same cannot be considered in exercise of its power under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure as High Court cannot conduct a mini trial at this stage. It is further submitted that there may be offences; from which, both a civil case and a criminal case can arise but merely because there is a civil remedy available, a criminal case cannot be quashed. It is also submitted that non-payment of rent of the hired vehicle amounts to an offence punishable in law. Hence, it is submitted that this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition, being without any merit, be dismissed.
Having heard the rival submissions made at the Bar and after carefully going through the materials available in the record, it is pertinent to mention here that it is a settled principle of law as has been reiterated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Accamma Sam Jacob vs. The State of Karnataka & Another reported in 2026 INSC 362, paragraph No. 56 of which reads as under:-
“56.In the facts and circumstances noted above, it was not at all justified for the High Court to have quashed proceedings merely on the ground that the dispute appeared to be civil in nature. It is well settled that the mere existence of a civil remedy does not by itself bar criminal proceedings where the allegations prima facie disclose commission of a cognizable
offence. By entering into an evaluation of the dispute on merits and proceeding to quash the order direction investigation, the High Court effectively stifled the investigative process at its inception. Such an approach runs contrary to the principles consistently laid down by this Court. (Emphasis supplied)
that the mere existences of a civil remedy do not by itself bar criminal proceedings where allegations prima facie disclose commission of a cognizable offence and the same was also held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in paragraph-eight of the case of K. Jagadish vs. Udaya Kumar G.S. & Another reported in (2020) 14 SCC 552.
It is also pertinent to mention here that non-payment of rent of a vehicle hired, amounts to a criminal offence as has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Somjeet Mallick vs.
State of Jharkhand & Others reported in 2024 INSC 772 para-17 and 20 of the said judgment reads as under:-
“17.To commit an offence, unless the penal statute provides otherwise, mens rea is one of the essential ingredients. Existence of mens rea is a question of fact which may be inferred from the act in question as well as the surrounding circumstances and conduct of the accused. As a sequitur, when a party alleges that the accused, despite taking possession of the Truck on hire, has failed to pay hire charges for” months together, while making false promises for its payment, a prima facie case, reflective of dishonest intention on the part of the accused, is made out which may require investigation. In such circumstances, if the FIR is quashed at the very inception, it would be nothing short of an act which thwarts a legitimate investigation. 20.In the instant case, the FIR alleges that the accused took original complainant’s Truck/Trailor on hire for a period starting from 14.07.2014 up to 31.03.2016 at a monthly rent of Rs.33,000/- but, after payment of 1st month rent, the rent was not paid despite false assurances. The allegation that rent was not paid by itself, in ordinary course, would presuppose retention of possession of the vehicle by the accused. In such circumstances as to what happened to that Truck becomes a matter of investigation. If it had been dishonestly disposed of by the accused, it may make out a case of criminal breach of trust. Therefore, there was no justification to quash the FIR at the threshold without looking into the materials collected during the course of the investigation.”
Now coming to the facts of the case, there is direct and specific allegation against the petitioner that she deceived the complainant and induced him to give his vehicle on hire to the co-accused persons and cheated him by not paying the rental dues of the vehicle which was hired by the co-accused from the complainant; on being thus cheated by the petitioner.
Under such circumstances, the contention of the petitioner that the allegations against the petitioner are false, is at best a defence of the petitioner which she can take at the time of trial of the case but certainly, the same is not a ground to be considered in exercise of its power under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure; as it is a settled principle of law that the High Court in exercise of its power under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, cannot consider the defence of the accused person of the case or the veracity of the evidence put forth by the accused as that would be the job of the trial court as has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Awadh Kishore Gupta & Others reported in 2004 2 Supreme 501.
It is also a settled principle of law that no mini trial can be conducted by the High Court in exercise of its power under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure as has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of State of Uttar Pradesh & Another vs. Akhil Sharda & Others reported in 2022 LiveLaw SC 594, the relevant portion of which reads as under:-
“Having gone through the impugned judgment and order passed by the High court has set aside the criminal proceedings in exercise of powers under Section 482 CrPC, it appears that the High Court has virtually conducted a mini trial, which as such is not permissible at this stage and while deciding the application under Section 482 CrPC. As observed and held by this court in a catena of decisions, no mini trial can be conducted by the High Court in exercise of power under Section 482 CrPC, jurisdiction and at the stage of deciding the application under Section 482 CrPC, the High Court cannot get into appreciation of evidence of the particular case being considering. (Emphasis supplied)”
In view of the discussions made above, this Court is of the considered view that even if the entire allegations made against the petitioner are considered to be true in their entirety then, the offences punishable inter alia under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code is made out against the petitioner.
Under such circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that this is not a fit case where the prayer of the petitioner made in this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition is to be acceded to by this Court in exercise of its power under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
Accordingly, this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition, being without any merit, is dismissed.