Ram Kumar vs State of Punjab

G.C. Mital and S.S. Sodhi, JJ.—Four separate challans were put up against Ramesh Chander and others under Sections 420, 408 and 109 Indian Penal Code at the instance of Ramesh Kumar and another. The case of Ramesh Kumar complaint was that on two different occasions the accused had dishonestly induced him to give Rs. 62,000 and Rs. 12,000 and he was cheated on the basis of the conspiracy. Similar was the case of the other complainant in regard to the amounts of Rs 54.800 and Rs. 30,000.

The learned Magistrate framed four separate charges against the accused on 2nd March, 1988. Only Ramesh Chander accused filed revisions against the framing of charge in all the four cases but remained un-successful before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, as his revisions were dismissed on 13th July, 1988. Ramesh Chander has now come to this Court u/s 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short ''the Code''), for the quashing of the charge framed in four different cases. He has filed Crl. Misc. Nos. 7251-M of 1988, 7253-M, 7255-M and 7257-M of 1988. Since they arise out of the same FIR and common question is involved therein, they are being disposed of be this common judgment.

At the motion stage, the learned counsel for the petitioner had relied on a decision of a Single Judge in Dharamvir v. State of Punjab (1987) 14 Cr. L.T. 226 for the proposition that if money is collected under the Double Money Saving Scheme, and the persons who collected the amount, refused to refund the same to the depositors, it would amount to breach of contract and no criminal liability for cheating would arise. The learned Judge admitted the petition for hearing by a Division Bench. This is how these cases have been placed before us.

Now adverting to the facts of the case, the petitioners bad started a committee known as ''Contribution Collection Club'', and they approached people to become members and all the members were to make contributions and they were to be paid turn by turn on the basis of bid. The balance, if any was to be distributed amongst the members as profit. When the turn of Ramesh Kumar and the other complainant came, they went to collect the amounts due to them, and the petitioner and others, who were in charge of the fund, refused to give them the payment. The question arises whether in law it could be held that Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code would be attracted or not. If attracted, the trial Magistrate will go into the matter, and if not, the charge can be quashed.

Referring to Dharamvir''s case (supra), the same is distinguishable on facts. There, none of the persons from whom the money had been collected had made any complaint and the FIR was recorded on the basic of some secret information. The learned, Judge recorded the following observations in this behalf :--

"There is no allegation in the First Information Report that any one had either approached the petitioner for the refund of the money deposited by him or that the petitioners had refused to pay the same."

On this basis, the learned Judge, concluded that the First Information Report deserved to be quashed.

It appears that another argument was sought to be raised that even if there is refusal to refund the money to the depositors, it would amount to breach of contract, for which only civil liability will arise. Firstly, this point did not directly arise in the case, and, therefore, the observations are obitor dicta. In case, it is considered that the point did directly arise in the case, we are of the opinion that the learned Judge was not right in coming to the conclusion, that it would be a case of civil liability, even if the complainant was able to prove before the Magistrate that he was dishonestly induced to deliver the huge amount to the accused, which he would have not done in case he had known the dishonest intention. Accordingly, the observations, which appear to be in the nature of obitor dicta are hereby overruled as not laying down the correct law.

For the purposes of framing charge, the only requirement is to see whether there is material from which prima facie case is made out. In this case, on the material on record, the trial Magistrate was right in flaming the charge. We do not find any ground for interference.

For the reasons recorded above, all the four petitions are dismissed.