Harish Kumar vs The State of Rajasthan & Anr

Heard.

By way of the instant misc. petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the accused petitioner Harish Kumar has approached this Court seeking

quashing of FIR No.379/2013 registered at the Police Station Dungargarh, District Bikaner for the offences under Sections 420 and 406 IPC.

Shri Saruparia, learned counsel representing the petitioner, vehemently urged that ex-facie, the allegations levelled in the FIR do not disclose the

necessary ingredients of the offences alleged and rather the same give rise to a dispute purely civil in nature and hence, the impugned FIR should be

quashed at the inception.

Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor V.S. Rajpurohit and Shri Nadish Singhvi, learned counsel representing the complainant vehemently

oppose the submissions advanced by Shri Saruparia. They pointed out that the petitioner gave an absolutely fraudulent inducement to the

complainant that he was in dire need of money stating that he was in expectation of a government job and would return the money after being so

appointed. With this fraudulent inducement, the complainant was made to part with a huge sum of Rs.10,00,000/-. The accused executed an

agreement in favour of the complainant in this regard. After getting the loan amount, the accused avoided the attempts of the complainant to contact

him. When the complainant was finally able to contact the accused petitioner, he bluntly refused that he had not taken any money from him. Even in

the pleading of the present petition and particularly at para No.4, it has been specifically averred that the petitioner never received the aforesaid

sum of money from the complainant.

The I.O. has collected the original agreement dated 11.04.2011 under which, the accused took a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- from the complainant

with an assurance that the same would be returned within 12 months and if he failed to do so, the complainant could take recourse of legal

proceedings against him. True it is that normally breach of such an agreement would give rise to civil proceedings but stand taken by the accused in

totally denying having ever received any such money from the complainant is a clear indication of his fraudulent intention and conduct. Having

received a huge sum of money from the complainant with an assurance to repay the same on getting a government job and totally resiling from the

promise is clearly indicative of the fraudulent intention of the accused right from the inception of the contract.

In view of the above discussion, I am of the firm opinion that it is not a case wherein the inherent powers of this Court conferred by Section 482

Cr.P.C. are required to be exercised so as to quash the impugned FIR at the inception.

Resultantly, the instant misc. petition deserves to be and is hereby dismissed.