AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
This petition has been filed by the petitioners under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. for invoking the inherent powers of this Court for quashing criminal case
No. 3295/2014 arising out of crime No. 14/2014 for offence punishable under Section 419, 420, 467, 468 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code registered at Police Station City Kotwali, District Umaria.
As per the petitioner, this is the second petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C before this Court. The earlier application M.Cr.C. No. 5863/2012 under Section 482 of Cr.P.C filed at the stage of investigation was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 02.07.2012 with liberty to file afresh for getting the charge-sheet quashed in case it was filed erring the petitioners as accused. The aforesaid order is annexed as Annexure P/1.
In brief the prosecution case is that on 07.01.2012, respondent No. 2 / Ramlakhan Dwivedi filed a written complaint to the Police Station Kotwali, District Umaria alleging that on 10.10.2011, he sold his land admeasuring 3.76 acres through a valid registered sale deed in favour of Managing Director of Chanaky Dairy Products Ltd. namely Vinod Dutt/petitioner No. 1 and Vidur Dutt/petitioner No. 2 for a consideration amount of Rs. 18
lakhs. In return, the authorized representative of the company namely Arvind Gautam (co-accused) issued two cheques one in favour of Ramlakhan himself amounting to Rs. 9,40,000/- and other in the name of his son Brijesh Dwivedi amounting to Rs. 8,60,000/-, respectively. When both the cheques were presented before the bank, they were dishonored. Arvind Gautam not only cheated respondent No. 2 but also cheated several innocent villagers. Similarly, they were only given cheques but not paid any amount to them. Thereafter, criminal case was registered by the police under Section 420 of IPC against the Directors of the company and the crook land mafia of the said company Arvind Gautam. After investigation, charge-sheet was filed against the applicants before the concerned Court.
Petitioners have filed the present petition on the grounds that the investigating authority without application of mind registered crime against the petitioners. In the present case, no cheque was issued by the petitioners or their representatives. Cheques were issued by a third party, could not be taken as a ground to levy any criminal liability on the petitioners. There is no evidence against the petitioners. Registered sale deed was executed by respondent No. 2 in their favour after receiving the consideration amount of Rs. 2,57,000/-. Criminal proceeding is pending before the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Umaria would amount to harassment of the petitioners, as no offence is committed by them. In such circumstances, prosecution against them would be abuse of process of law, hence, they prayed to set aside the FIR of crime No. 14/2012 and the consequent charge-sheet as well as the further proceedings of criminal case No. 3295/2014 pending before the CJM/DJ Umaria
Learned counsel for the petitioners placed reliance on the cases of R.P. Kapur vs. State of Punjab, AIR (1960) SC 866; M/s Indian Oil Corporation
Vs. M/s NEPC India Ltd. & Ors., AIR 2006 (SCW) 3830; A.K. Khosla and Ors. Vs. T.S. Venkatensan and Ors. 1992 Cri.LJ 1448; Inder Mohan Goswami & Another Vs. State of Uttaranchal & Ors., AIR 2008 (SC) 251 of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and further contented that a complaint can be quashed where the allegations made in the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety, do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out the case alleged against the accused. While considering whether allegations in the complaint and the initial deposition and the documents relied upon by the complainant prima facie establish the offence alleged the court is not bound to accept allegations which are even opposed to common sense and broad probabilities.
Heard learned counsel for the parties. Perused the record.
After considering the entire evidence available on record, this Court finds that even though respondent No. 2 filed his written submission in support of the petitioners, but his actual grievance is still in existence that he has not received the consideration amount in lieu of the disputed registered sale
deed. The disputed land was purchased by the petitioners. It is not in dispute that the petitioners also claimed their title over the land. Crime was registered on the basis of involvement of one Arvind Gautam with the petitioners. He was working as their agent or as a mediator during the sale transaction because the police registered crime under Section 419, 420, 467, 468 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioners.
All the contentions raised by the petitioners are question of facts and would be adjudicated by the trial Court after recording of evidence. The involvement of petitioners are matter of evidence. In such cases, it is difficult to collect direct evidence. This is settled law when highly disputed “question of facts” are involved in the case, inherent power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. cannot be invoked. The Supreme Court in Amit Kapoor
Vs. Ramesh Chander reported in (2012) 9 SCC 460 has held as under:
“27.1 Though there are no limits of the powers of the Court under Section 482 of the Code but the more the power, the more due care and caution is to be exercised in invoking these powers.”
In case of Sesami Chemicals Private Limited Vs. State of Meghalaya and Ors., (2014) 16 SCC 711, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under :
“We are of the opinion that the petition filed by the contesting respondents under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 is an abuse of the process of the Court. As already noticed, the facts are seriously in dispute. The truth or otherwise of such facts can only be established by evidence at the trial. We are, therefore, set aside the order of the High Court. The first respondent is directed to proceed with FIR No. 43(10) of 2011 dated 12.10.2011 in accordance with law.”
In case of Jagdish Valecha vs. State of MP & Ors. (M.Cr. C.No. 8307/2016), Gwalior Bench of this Court has relied upon the case of Vinod Raghuvanshi vs. Ajay Arora, reported in (2013) 10 SCC 581, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under :
It is a settled legal proposition that while considering the case for quashing of the criminal proceedings the court should not "kill a stillborn child", and appropriate prosecution should not be stifled unless there are compelling circumstances to do so. An investigation should not be shut out at the threshold if the allegations have some substance. When a prosecution at the initial stage is to be quashed, the test to be applied by the court is whether the uncontroverted allegations as made, prima facie establish the offence. At this stage neither can the court embark upon an inquiry, whether the allegations in the complaint are likely to be established by evidence nor should the court judge the probability, reliability or genuineness of the allegations made therein.
In case of Uday Narayan & Anr. vs. State of MP & Anr. (M.Cr.C.No. 1126/2016), Gwalior Bench of this Court has held as under:
“The parameters in quashing an FIR or complaint or proceedings in a criminal case is well known. If there are trivial issues, the Court is not expected to go into the veracity of the rival versions, but where on he face of it the allegations are absurd or do not make out any case of it and the criminal proceedings are abuse of the Court’s process, quashing jurisdiction under section 482, Criminal Procedure Code can be exercise. In this respect a reference may be made to the parameters or guidelines given by the Supreme Court in the cases of State of Haryana vs. Bhajanlal, 1990 MPLJ Online (S.C.) 1 = AIR 1992 SCW 237, Indian Oil Corporation vs. NEPC India Limited, (2006) 6 SCC 736, Prashant Bharti vs. State of NCT of Delhi, 2013 MPLJ Online (Cri.) (S.C.) 11 = AIR 2013 SC 275, Amit Kapoor vs. Ramesh Chander, 2012 MPLJ Online (Cri.) (S.C.) 4 = (2012) 9 SCC 460 and other cases.”
In the light of the above principles and evidence available on record, no ground for quashing FIR of crime No. 14/2012 and the consequent charge-sheet as well as the further proceedings of criminal case No. 3295/2014 pending before the CJM/DJ Umaria is made out.
Accordingly, the petition stands dismissed.