Mohan Ram @APPELLANT@Hash State of Rajasthan & Ors.

Â

Heard learned counsel for the parties. Perused the material available on record.

Through this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the petitioners herein have approached this Court seeking quashing of the FIR No.186/2017

registered at the Police Station Ladnun, District Nagaur for the offences under Sections 406 and 420 IPC.

Facts relevant and necessary for disposal of the instant misc. petition are noted herein below.

The respondent No.2 complainant lodged the above FIR against the petitioners through a complaint forwarded from the Court of the learned Judicial

Magistrate, Ladnun under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. inter alia alleging that the complainant and the petitioners herein were close friends and thus, they

decided to open a joint hotel business after procuring a piece of land. Thereafter, the complainant and the accused jointly purchased a piece of land on

the NH 65 between Nimbi Jodha and Ladnun, on which they constructed a hotel named Prince Midway in the year 2010-11. The inauguration was

held on 10.03.2012. As per the complainant, the intention of the accused petitioners was fraudulent right at the inception and thus, even in the invitation

card, the name of the hotel was printed as Hotel Prince Midway Dhaka Ki Dhani. Thereafter, at the insistence of the complainant, the name was

amended to Hotel Prince Midway, Dhaka and Manda. As per the complainant, the joint partnership business continued satisfactorily for about 6

months but later on, the accused started playing fraud in the accounts. Thus, the complainant gave them a proposal to end the partnership. He offered

the accused to either retain the hotel business for themselves or to give it exclusively to the complainant. The accused decided to opt for the hotel

business and offered the complainant compensation in lieu of exiting from the business. However, the partnership business could not be formally

severed for some time. Ultimately, with the mediation of some known persons, terms of dissolution of the business were agreed upon by mutual

understanding on 06.10.2012 whereby, the hotel and the business was retained by the petitioners Mohanlal and Kanvari Lal whereas for excluding the

complainant from the partnership, a sum of Rs.18,33,570/- and 0.5 biswas of the land was agreed to be transferred to the complainant. The

complainant and the mediators approached the accused on 23.10.2012 for handing over his share. The accused gave a sum of Rs.9,33,570/- to the

complainant on the very same day and promised that the remaining amount shall be paid and the land transfer executed within 15 days. However,

neither the remaining amount of rupees 9 lac was paid by the accused petitioners to the complainant nor did they transfer 0.5 biswas of land to him in

terms of the oral settlement. On 10.12.2016, the complainant approached the accused with his mediators but the accused bluntly refused to stand by

the terms of the settlement. In this background, the complainant was compelled to file the FIR against the accused.

The accused, earlier approached this Court seeking quashing of the very same FIR by filing S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No.3112/2017 and while

deciding the same on 18.09.2017, this Court relegated the petitioners to submit a representation to the I.O. who, in turn, was directed to consider the

same objectively and then to give 15 days notice to the accused in case their arrest was still warranted after decision of the representation. The

petitioners were given liberty to approach the Court again in case need so arose. Thereupon, the petitioners filed a representation to the I.O. who, in

turn, issued a notice of arrest to the petitioners intimating them that the offences were found proved. Thereupon, the accused persons have again

approached this Court through this misc petition seeking quashing of the FIR.

Shri R.S. Choudhary, learned counsel representing the petitioners relied upon the Supreme Court Judgment rendered in the case of Paramjeet Batra

vs. State of Uttarakhand & Ors., reported in 2013 Cr.L.R. (SC) 67 and urged that Hon’ble the Supreme Court considered an exactly identical

factual scenario and quashed the criminal proceedings holding that the allegations levelled essentially gave rise to a dispute purely of civil nature.

Banking upon the facts and ratio of the above judgment, Shri Choudhary urged that the case at hand is one wherein, the complainant has misused the

process of criminal law by giving cloak of criminal offences to a dispute which is purely civil in nature. He thus, implored the Court to exercise its

inherent powers and quash the impugned FIR as the same does not disclose the necessary ingredients of the offences alleged.

Per contra, the learned Public Prosecutor and Shri I.S. Pareek, learned counsel representing the complainant vehemently opposed the submissions

advanced by the petitioners’ counsel. They urged that the accused, acted with deception and fraudulently induced the complainant to invest a huge

sum of money in the joint hotel venture. Thereafter, they started playing fraud in the accounts. The complainant made it clear to the accused that he

could not continue in the joint venture because of their foul play. The accused agreed to part company with the complainant promising to pay him a

sum of Rs.18,33,570/- and to transfer 0.5 biswas of land to him for settling his share in the joint business. However, the complainant was paid only a

sum of Rs.9,33,570/- and the accused resiled from the remaining promise made with the complainant. They thus urged that the case is not such

wherein, this Court should feel persuaded to exercise inherent powers for quashing the impugned FIR at the inception.

I have heard and considered the arguments advanced by the counsel for the parties and have carefully gone through the impugned FIR as well as the

case diary.

The most significant and striking fact which emerges from the record is that no formal agreement is available on record so as to substantiate the claim

of the complainant that he invested any significant sum of money in the joint partnership hotel business. In the entire FIR and the statement of the

complainant recorded by the I.O., he carefully and consciously concealed the exact sum of money which he invested (if any) in the joint partnership

business. Neither any partnership deed executed inter se between the parties was filed with the FIR nor the same has been presented before the I.O.

during investigation. Thus, it can at best be assumed that the complainant entered into an oral agreement with the accused to run a hotel in joint

venture. After a while, the joint venture stuck a discord on which, the partners i.e. the accused petitioners on the one hand and the complainant on the

other hand decided to part ways. The accused petitioners admittedly paid a sum of Rs.9,33,570/- lacs to the complainant on 23.10.2012. There is no

material on the record of the case so as to satisfy the Court that the share of the complainant towards his exclusion from the joint venture could be

quantified at a sum of Rs.18,33,570/- and 0.5 biswas of land as claimed by him in the FIR. Furthermore, admittedly, as per the complainant, the

accused agreed to pay the entire dues of the complainant within a period of 15 days from 23.10.2012. However, the complainant lodged the FIR for

the alleged failure of the accused to stand by their assurance given in the year 2012 as late as in the year 2017. No explanation has been given in the

FIR or in the statement of the complainant recorded during investigation for explaining this undue delay in lodging of the criminal case. That apart,

from the facts narrated above, it is clear that by no stretch of imagination, can the Court reach to a satisfaction that the intention of the accused was

fraudulent at the inception of the contract. Had it been so, the accused would not have parted with a huge sum of Rs.9,33,570/- when the oral

compromise was arrived at. This single fact is sufficient to draw a conclusion that the accused never intended to cheat the complainant at the time of

entering into the contract and rather, the subsequent developments resulted into the fall out of the joint venture between the complainant and the

accused. The facts of the case at hand are exactly identical to the facts considered and adjudicated by Hon’ble the Supreme Court in Paramjeet

Batra’s case. If at all, the complainant had any cause to proceed against the accused for recovering his due amount on account of falling out of

the partnership, then he was required to take recourse of the remedy of civil suit to achieve the same. Manifestly, the complainant has misused the

process of criminal law and has entangled the accused petitioners in this totally frivolous FIR by giving a cloak of criminal offences to facts which

disclose a purely civil dispute.

In this background, this Court is of the firm view that it is a fit case wherein, powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. are required to be exercised so as to

quash the FIR at the inception as the same does not disclose the necessary ingredients of the offences alleged and also amounts to a sheer abuse of

process of law.

Hence, the misc. petition deserves to be and is hereby allowed. The impugned FIR No.186/2017 registered at the Police Station Ladnun, District

Nagaur and all subsequent proceedings sought to be taken thereunder are hereby quashed.

Stay petition is disposed of.